Stanford University

Elections

Diane Bolet

0
Visiting Student Researcher at The Europe Center, 2018-2019
d._bolet_2014-03-08.jpg

Diane Bolet is a Visiting Student Researcher in comparative politics and European studies from the London School of Economics and Political Science. She is researching local factors behind voting behaviour and on far-right votes in particular. She investigates the effects of local immigration, voluntary associations and social networks on far-right electoral support in Europe. Her research interests include voting behavior, electoral geography and quantitative methods.

 

Diane holds a dual master degree in European Studies from Sciences Po and LSE (with Distinction). Prior to that, she completed a first-class honors Bachelor of Arts in International Politics at King's College, London.

 

CV

Paul Sniderman

(650) 723 3591
0
Fairleigh S. Dickinson, Jr. Professor in Public Policy.
Professor of Political Science
paul.sniderman_photo.jpg

Paul M. Sniderman is the Fairleigh S. Dickinson, Jr. Professor in Public Policy.

Sniderman’s current research focuses on the institutional organization of political choice; multiculturalism and inclusion of Muslims in Western Europe; and the politics of race in the United States.

Most recently, he authored The Democratic Faith and co-authored Paradoxes of Liberal Democracy: Islam, Western Europe and the Danish Cartoon Crisis (with Michael Bang Petersen, Rune Slothuus, and Rune Stubager).

He has published many other books, including The Reputational Premium: A Theory of Party Identification and Policy Reasoning, Reasoning and Choice, The Scar of Race, Reaching beyond Race, The Outsider, and Black Pride and Black Prejudice, in addition to a plethora of articles. He initiated the use of computer-assisted interviewing to combine randomized experiments and general population survey research.

A fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, he has been awarded the Woodrow Wilson Prize, 1992; the Franklin L. Burdette Pi Sigma Alpha Award, 1994; an award for the Outstanding Book on the Subject of Human Rights from the Gustavus Meyers Center, 1994; the Gladys M. Kammerer Award, 1998; the Pi Sigma Alpha Award; and the Ralph J. Bunche Award, 2003.

Sniderman received his B.A. degree (philosophy) from the University of Toronto and his M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of California, Berkeley.

 

Affiliated faculty of The Europe Center
CV

The 2018 Taiwanese Local Elections: Results and Implications

-

On November 24, 2018, Taiwan's electorate will go to the polls to select thousands of ward chiefs, hundreds of council members, and dozens of mayors and county executives. This talk will cover the results of the election and discuss the implications for Taiwan's future, including party politics and cross-Strait relations.

Kharis Templeman
Kharis Templeman is the Project Manager of the Taiwan Democracy and Security Project in the U.S.-Asia Security Initiative, and a social science research scholar at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) at Stanford University. His current research includes projects on party system institutionalization and partisan realignments, electoral integrity and manipulation in East Asia, the politics of defense spending in Taiwan, and the representation of Taiwan’s indigenous minorities.
 
His most recent publication is “When Do Electoral Quotas Advance Indigenous Representation?: Evidence from the Taiwanese Legislature,” in Ethnopolitics. He is also the editor (with Larry Diamond and Yun-han Chu) of Taiwan’s Democracy Challenged: The Chen Shui-bian Years (2016, Lynne Rienner Publishing). Other work has appeared in the Taiwan Journal of Democracy, Comparative Political Studies and APSA Annals of Comparative Democratization.
 

Philippines Conference Room
Encina Hall, 3rd Floor
616 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305

Kharis Templeman <i>Project Manager, Taiwan Democracy & Security Project, U.S.-Asia Security Initiative, Stanford University</i>
Lectures

Dynasties and Democracy: The Inherited Incumbency Advantage in Japan

Paragraphs

Although democracy is, in principle, the antithesis of dynastic rule, families with multiple members in elective office continue to be common around the world. In most democracies, the proportion of such "democratic dynasties" declines over time, and rarely exceeds ten percent of all legislators. Japan is a startling exception, with over a quarter of all legislators in recent years being dynastic. In Dynasties and Democracy, Daniel M. Smith sets out to explain when and why dynasties persist in democracies, and why their numbers are only now beginning to wane in Japan—questions that have long perplexed regional experts.

Smith introduces a compelling comparative theory to explain variation in the presence of dynasties across democracies and political parties. Drawing on extensive legislator-level data from twelve democracies and detailed candidate-level data from Japan, he examines the inherited advantage that members of dynasties reap throughout their political careers—from candidate selection, to election, to promotion into cabinet. Smith shows how the nature and extent of this advantage, as well as its consequences for representation, vary significantly with the institutional context of electoral rules and features of party organization. His findings extend far beyond Japan, shedding light on the causes and consequences of dynastic politics for democracies around the world.
 
Daniel M. Smith is an associate professor in the Department of Government at Harvard University. During the 2012-13 academic year, he was a Shorenstein Postdoctoral Fellow at Shorenstein APARC.
All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Books
Publication Date
Authors
Number
978-1-503605-05-3

Geography, Uncertainty, and Polarization

Paragraphs

Using new data on roll-call voting of US state legislators and public opinion in their districts, we explain how ideological polarization of voters within districts can lead to legislative polarization. In so-called “moderate” districts that switch hands between parties, legislative behavior is shaped by the fact that voters are often quite heterogeneous: the ideological distance between Democrats and Republicans within these districts is often greater than the distance between liberal cities and conservative rural areas. We root this intuition in a formal model that associates intradistrict ideological heterogeneity with uncertainty about the ideological location of the median voter. We then demonstrate that among districts with similar median voter ideologies, the difference in legislative behavior between Democratic and Republican state legislators is greater in more ideologically heterogeneous districts. Our findings suggest that accounting for the subtleties of political geography can help explain the coexistence of polarized legislators and a mass public that appears to contain many moderates.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Political Science Research and Methods
Authors
Jonathan Rodden
External URL

Andrew Grotto Testifies on "Cybersecurity and California Elections"

Authors
Andrew Grotto
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

On March 7, 2018, CISAC scholar and Hoover Institution Research Fellow Andrew Grotto testified before a bicameral hearing of the California Legislature on “Cybersecurity and California Elections.” Grotto emphasized the importance of upholding the public's confidence in our electoral infrastructure, and highlighted the need for California's state and county election professionals to implement cybersecurity best practices. 

Andy Grotto
He urged that they practice their incident response and communications plans in order to ensure they are prepared for contingencies during the 2018 election cycle, in light of threats emanating from Russia and elsewhere. 

He also reminded that campaigns and elected officials are also vital components of our nation's electoral infrastructure, and that they too have a responsibility for upholding the public's confidence in our democracy. He emphasized the need for candidates to be vigilant and not allow their campaigns to become unwitting ampflifiers of Russian disinformation efforts. The full testimony is available here.

Hero Image
gettyimages 515689422usvote voting Getty Images
All News button
1

Drawing the line in redistricting (A mathematician's take)

-

Abstract: In this talk, I will describe a a body of mathematical work trying to quantify the extent to which a redistricting plan is a partisan gerrymander. 

This work served as the basis for my court testimony in Common Cause v. Rucho which recently declared the NC 2016 Congressional  maps a partisan gerrymander. The Duke Quantifying Gerrymanderig group also produced a report on partisan gerrymandering in Wisconsin which was one of the biases for Eric Lander’s amicus brief in Gill v Whitford. The method turns on generating an ensemble of redistrictings without regard to any (or little) partisan data and then using this ensemble to bench mark what properties a typical redistricting should have. This in turn can be used to determine if a specific redistricting is a statistical outlier. More information and source papers can be found at https://sites.duke.edu/quantifyinggerrymandering/ .

 

Speaker bio: Jonathan  Mattingly grew up in Charlotte, NC where he graduated from the NC School of Science and Mathematics and received a BS is Applied Mathematics with a concentration in physics from Yale University. After two years abroad with a year spent at ENS Lyon studying nonlinear and statistical physics on a Rotary Fellowship, he returned to the US to attend Princeton University where he obtained a PhD in Applied and Computational Mathematics in 1998. After 4 years as a Szego Assistant Professor of Mathematics at Stanford University and a year as a member of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton, he moved to Duke University in 2003. He is currently a Professor of Mathematics and of Statistical Science. He is the recipient of a Sloan Fellowship, a PECASE CAREER award, and is a fellow of the IMS and the AMS. 

Jonathan Mattingly Professor of Mathematics and of Statistical Science Duke University
Seminars

Hoist on their own petards? The reinvention and collapse of authoritarian successor parties

Paragraphs
What happens to authoritarian ruling parties when they accept democracy and reinvent their organizations, symbols, and programs to comply with the norms of free political competition? The consequences of such reinvention have been neglected empirically, yet they are critical for our understanding both of the costs and benefits of party transformation and for the health of democratic party competition. Using a novel data set comprising 81 countries over 1945–2015, and a structured comparison of two prominent cases of authoritarian reinvention, this article makes three contributions. First, it distinguishes among the different strategies available to authoritarian ruling parties after the collapse of their monopoly regimes, including exit, dissolution, and reinvention. Second, it finds that the cruel paradox is that the biggest boosters and builders of party democracy—the reinvented authoritarian successor parties—eventually suffer the most electorally. Third, this paradoxical fate follows from their initial decisions to reinvent and transform themselves
All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Party Politics
Authors
Anna Grzymała-Busse
External URL
Subscribe to Elections