Search

Begin New Search Topic Elections Political Geography United States of America

151. The Electoral Impact of Newly Enfranchised Groups: The Case of Women’s Suffrage in the United States

Author:
Mona Morgan-Collins
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Nottingham Interdisciplinary Centre for Economic and Political Research (NICEP)
Abstract:
Did the expansion of women’s suffrage make a dent in electoral politics? I theorize that while women’s suffrage has the potential to sway electoral tides in favor of the newly enfranchised, such effects are conditional on the strength of a social movement that represents their interests. A social movement defines the groups’ shared interests and helps to create an active, informed and mobilized pool of voters that can take electoral action to foster common policy goals. In testing this argument, I use evidence from the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment in the United States and employ a difference in difference approach that exploits the heterogeneity in the proportion of women across counties. I find support for the argument. The findings have important implications for the study of representation of marginalized groups, as formal inclusion of previously disenfranchised groups may not be sufficient to secure their de facto representation.
Topic:
Politics, Elections, Women, Suffrage, and Electoral Systems
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

152. A Long Way To Go: Analyzing Facebook, Twitter, and Google’s Efforts to Combat Foreign Interference

Author:
Bradley Hanlon
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
Two years after the Russian government manipulated social media to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, online information platforms continue to serve as mediums for such operations, including the 2018 midterm elections. Under intense public criticism and congressional scrutiny, the three most prominent online information platforms – Facebook, Twitter, and Google – have taken steps to address vulnerabilities and to protect their users against information operations by actors linked to authoritarian regimes. However, given the ongoing nature of online authoritarian interference, the steps taken by these companies continue to fall short. This report reviews and analyzes the steps taken by online information platforms to better defend against foreign interference since 2016, adopting the framing of the Senate Intelligence Committee by focusing on the largest and most influential online information platforms of Facebook, Twitter, and Google. The platforms’ efforts to combat foreign interference have focused primarily on three key lines of effort: preventing or suppressing inauthentic behavior, improving political advertising transparency, and investing in forward-looking partnerships. Measures to limit user interaction with inauthentic behavior include content removal, labeling, and algorithmic changes. The platforms have also taken steps to improve advertising through policies to publicize advertiser information and improve verification standards for those hoping to publish political advertisements. Investments in forward-looking measures have included internal initiatives to critically assess vulnerabilities and external partnerships with civil society, academia, and fact-checking organizations. They have also led to increased transparency about the behavior and content of accounts linked to the Russian operation against the 2016 and 2018 elections, as well as other nation-state operations targeting Americans. Though all of these steps are important, ongoing vulnerabilities demand more urgent action by the platforms to secure the online information space against foreign manipulation, while ensuring American’s ability to engage freely in robust speech and debate.
Topic:
Elections, Partnerships, Social Media, and Foreign Interference
Political Geography:
Russia and United States of America

153. Ten Legislative Proposals to Defend America against Foreign Influence Operations

Author:
David Salvo and Brittany Beaulieu
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s February 16 indictment of the Internet Research Agency, along with 13 key individuals and two related entities, was another reminder for Americans of the coordinated attack mounted on our country’s democracy. In addition to the use of information operations outlined in the indictment, the U.S. intelligence community has documented Russia’s use of hacks on campaign related entities, with stolen information weaponized and released via Wikileaks and other outlets, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has confirmed that at least 21 states had parts of their electoral infrastructure probed in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. The Internet Research Agency purchased political advertisements and sponsored organic content on social media platforms aimed at amplifying socially divisive issues. This content reached over a hundred million Americans, and the trend of exacerbating social divisions has continued on Twitter, in particular, over the past year and a half. Meanwhile, Russia and China are investing in advanced technology companies in the United States, acquiring both technical know-how and vast amounts of data that could facilitate the targeting of Americans. Director of National Intelligence Coats recently testified, “There should be no doubt that Russia perceives its past efforts as successful and views the 2018 midterm elections as a potential target for Russian influence operations.” And other governments like China are learning lessons from Russia’s success. Americans were caught off guard by Russia’s actions, but now that we know the breadth and scope of their malign influence operations, we must plug vulnerabilities that Russia and other foreign actors will continue to exploit if we are to defend our democracy against foreign interference. Yet, more than a year after the 2016 presidential election, and with midterm elections looming on the horizon, Congress and the Trump administration have not taken any clear action to increase U.S. defenses against the foreign interference threat. Many Americans remain unwilling to even admit that this interference occurred and many members of Congress have decided to use this issue for partisan attacks instead of uniting to secure our democracy. There are important steps we can, and must, take to defend our institutions against adversaries who seek to undermine them. Many of Russia’s tactics have exploited vulnerabilities in our societies and technologies, and loopholes in our laws. Some of the steps necessary to defend ourselves will involve long-term work to reduce polarization. Others will require clear action by the Executive Branch — including strategic messaging to ensure Americans are united against the threat we face, and steps to both deter and raise the costs on such actions. Congress does not have to wait for action by the Trump administration. Many of these steps are ones that Congress has the power to take. And particularly in the face of President Trump’s failure to lead an effort to counter this threat, Congress must step up and take steps within its power to patch the holes that congressional investigations and the intelligence and law enforcement communities have revealed. The good news is a number of legislative steps have already been proposed in both chambers on a bipartisan basis to improve the United States’ ability to defend against and deter these external threats, and there are other measures that could be added to those to close gaps in our defenses. These steps would close loopholes in current law and strengthen our institutional capacity to defend against foreign influence campaigns. We believe these are common sense steps that every member of Congress — on both sides of the aisle — should support.
Topic:
National Security, Elections, Internet, Legislation, Foreign Interference, and Influence
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

154. Evaluation of Trump’s First 100 Days of Action

Author:
An Gang
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pangoal Institution
Abstract:
April 30th 2017 marks the US President Donald Trump's 100th day in office. In US political tradition, the first one hundred days of a first-term presidency are usually called the “observation period” or “honeymoon period,” during which the new leader in Washington acts with great expectations from the public and a moderate thaw in relations with Congress. The new administration tends to face little resistance, and the media usually avoids jumping to conclusions about its course and capability. Hence, the new president takes full advantage of looser constraints and favorable conditions during this period, attempting to remove as many “legacies” lingering from the previous administration as possible (if the two administrations are from different parties), delivering on the promises made during the election campaign, charting the future for the US and the world as clearly as possible, and laying a foundation for policies and performance in the first term. On November 21st 2016, the third day after he won the presidential election, Trump unveiled plans for his first 100 days in office via video, mainly including proposals related to immigration, trade, defense policy, and the political environment in Washington. Trump pledged to “make America great again,” and beat drums for the doctrine of “America first,” attempting to restructure the US economy, trade, and foreign policies. As he stated, “whether it's producing steel, building cars, or curing disease, I want the next generation of production and innovation to happen right here, in our great homeland: America—creating wealth and jobs for American workers.” As we head into the 100th day of the Trump’s presidency, has Trump achieved a good start? Has he proved that he could end up being a “great president”? Is it possible for Trump to create the new America that he has promised?
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Elections, Donald Trump, and Domestic Policy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

155. How buzz on Russia dossier undermines bilateral relations between Moscow and Washington

Author:
Andrei Korobkov
Publication Date:
11-2017
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Rethinking Russia
Abstract:
The buzz surrounding the so-called “Russian trace” in the U.S. elections, started by former presidential candidate from the Democratic party Hillary Clinton during her 2016 failed presidential campaign, continues to evolve. New accusations spring up, leading to new investigations. Started in mid-2016 by Clinton’s claims about the Russian hackers, who allegedly disclosed information contained on the Democratic Party National Committee servers, it increasingly targets the members of President Donald Trump’s inner circle, including some of his family members. Appointed to deal initially with a narrow set of issues, the Independent Prosecutor Robert Mueller, the former FBI Director, has to deal with the quickly expanding set of claims and accusations.
Topic:
Intelligence, Bilateral Relations, Elections, Domestic Politics, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, North America, and United States of America

156. Russia Studies in the U.S.: From academic ghetto to political mainstream

Author:
Pavel Koshkin
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Rethinking Russia
Abstract:
After the victory of republican Donald Trump at the 2016 presidential election followed by the series of probes into the Kremlin’s alleged meddling in the American domestic affairs, Russia turned into political mainstream in the U.S. However, the revived interest toward this country failed to translate into increasing funding of Russia Studies programs. And here is why.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Elections, Academia, and Area Studies
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, North America, and United States of America

157. Three milestones of Russia’s foreign policy in 2017

Author:
Pavel Koshkin
Publication Date:
12-2017
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Rethinking Russia
Abstract:
2017 brought both successes and disappointments to Russia on the international arena. Moscow succeeded in establishing dialogue with its rivals in the Middle East — Saudi Arabia and Turkey. It also participated in the Astana peace talks to come up with a compromise with Ankara and Tehran on Syria. Besides, Russia together with its Syrian allies defeated the Islamic State of Iraq and the Greater Syria (ISIS). Afterwards, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced about the partial withdrawal of the Russian troops from Syria. One of the biggest challenges became the strengthening of the American sanctions against Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The Russia dossier probe conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Congress is also a very important event, because it could deepen the crisis in U.S.-Russia relations. Parliamentary and presidential elections in Europe also matter: They took place amidst the buzz about the Russian cyber threat and hackers, and this indicates that there is not trust toward Russia in European countries today.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Sanctions, Elections, Islamic State, and Negotiation
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Eurasia, Middle East, Syria, and United States of America

158. Trumpism and International Relations: At the Threshold of Deideologization

Author:
E. Solovyev
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics, Diplomacy and International Relations
Institution:
East View Information Services
Abstract:
eLection oF DonALD truMp and his active efforts to undermine the foreign and domestic policy course inherited from the obama admin- istration sent waves of concern across the Western analytical community. his inaugural address had a bombshell effect on Western mainstream media. his close to perfect populist speech (calling “to drain the Washington swamp” and “give power back to the people”) was national- ist at the brink of “isolationism.”1 he looked like a perfect right-wing populist and no exception to the common rule: clearly defined problems and real and urgent questions never supplied with clear (or rational) answers.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Elections, Populism, Ideology, and Domestic Policy
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

159. To Assad and his admirers, Trump offers ‘hope and change’

Author:
Mahdi Dakhlallah, Imad Salim, Tahseen al-Halabi, and Bashar al-Assad
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Harvard Journal of Middle Eastern Politics and Policy
Institution:
The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University
Abstract:
During the presidential campaign, Trump said he “[doesn’t] like Assad at all” and described the Syrian leader as “a bad guy.” But he compared Assad favorably to the alternatives. “Assad is killing ISIS,” Trump stated, whereas “we don’t even know who they [the rebels] are.” Trump even claimed Assad to be “much tougher and much smarter” than political rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Unsurprisingly, Assad and his admirers took heart in Trump’s surprise victory last November, with an adviser to the Syrian president saying the American people had “sent a great, a very important message to the world.” Yet Assad supporters – as well as the Syrian president himself – are taking a cautious approach to the new US administration, unsure of whether, and to what extent, Trump will overhaul American foreign policy. Here’s what columnists in pro-Assad media outlets think about Trump’s implications for Syria, followed by excerpts from two interviews with Assad about the new US president.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, War, Elections, News Analysis, Trump, and Syrian War
Political Geography:
Middle East, Syria, North America, and United States of America

160. Authoritarian Backlash: A Comparison of Turkey & Venezuela

Author:
Robert Pearson
Publication Date:
10-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
American Diplomacy
Institution:
American Diplomacy
Abstract:
“Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” This famous opening line from Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina is important also for democracies. While Turkey and Venezuela are each unhappy in their own way, they also may share some common elements in their struggles for democracy that provide lessons.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Authoritarianism, Elections, Democracy, and Economy
Political Geography:
Turkey, Middle East, South America, Venezuela, and United States of America