Search

Begin New Search Topic Elections Political Geography United States of America

61. The Knife Edge Election of 2020: American Politics Between Washington, Kabul, and Weimar

Author:
Thomas Ferguson, Paul Jorgensen, and Jie Chen
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Abstract:
This paper analyzes the 2020 election, focusing on voters, not political money, and emphasizing the importance of economic geography. Drawing extensively on county election returns, it analyzes how spatial factors combined with industrial structures to shape the outcome. It treats COVID 19’s role at length. The paper reviews studies suggesting that COVID 19 did not matter much, but then sets out a new approach indicating it mattered a great deal. The study analyzes the impact on the vote not only of unemployment but differences in income and industry structures, along with demographic factors, including religion, ethnicity, and race. It also studies how the waves of wildcat strikes and social protests that punctuated 2020 affected the vote in specific areas. Trump’s very controversial trade policies and his little discussed farm policies receive detailed attention. The paper concludes with a look at how political money helped make the results of the Congressional election different from the Presidential race. It also highlights the continuing importance of private equity and energy sectors opposed to government action to reverse climate change as conservative forces in (especially) the Republican Party, together with agricultural interests.
Topic:
Elections, Protests, Voting, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

62. Conspiracy Buffs, Skeptics and the 2016 US Presidential Election

Author:
Ted Goertzel
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
Institution:
Transatlantic Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
Abstract:
We identified “Conspiracy Buffs” and “Skeptics” based on two conspiracy theory items included in the 2016 American National Election Survey. We then compared these two groups, and the much larger group we called the “Uncertains”, on a large number of closed and open-ended survey items. The Conspiracy Buffs had lower levels of education than the Skeptics, had less facility with language, and were more likely to state that they had not thought much about whether they were liberal or conservative. They expressed strongly angry feelings about Hillary Clinton, often citing the Benghazi incident and her use of a private email server. The Skeptics were just as angry at Donald Trump as the Buffs were at Hillary Clinton, but they did not use arguments drawn from conspiracy theories. They referred to his widely acknowledged personality traits and personal behaviors. These traits were also mentioned by many Buffs, but more in disappointment than in anger.
Topic:
Politics, Elections, Voting, and Conspiracy Theory
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

63. Voting Rights Issue Briefs

Author:
Committee for Economic Development of the Conference Board
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Conference Board
Abstract:
Two-thirds of eligible voters participated in the 2020 election, which represented the highest turnout in a national election since 1900, before women had the right to vote. More than 159 million Americans voted, the largest total voter turnout in our history and the first time more than 140 million individuals participated in an election. Turnout rose among all racial and ethnic groups, and for the first time a majority of Americans under the age of 30 cast ballots. This historic level of participation is more remarkable given that the election took place in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.
Topic:
Elections, Domestic Politics, Voting, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

64. UN Human Rights Council Elections for 2022-2024 and the Responsibility to Protect

Author:
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Publication Date:
10-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Abstract:
Today, 14 October, the UN General Assembly elected Argentina, Benin, Cameroon, Eritrea, Finland, The Gambia, Honduras, India, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Montenegro, Paraguay, Qatar, Somalia, United Arab Emirates and the United States of America to the Human Rights Council (HRC) for the 2022-2024 term. With the elections of Argentina, Finland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Paraguay, Qatar and the United States of America, 19 of the 47 Council members in 2022 will be “Friends of the Responsibility to Protect” – having appointed an R2P Focal Point and/or joined the Group of Friends of R2P in New York and Geneva. The Human Rights Council and its mechanisms and procedures – including the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), investigative mechanisms, special procedures and treaty bodies, as well as the technical assistance provided by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) – all play an essential role in providing early warning of the risk factors that can lead to crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and genocide, and provide recommendations to prevent their recurrence. The election of Cameroon, Eritrea and the United Arab Emirates – states that have a history of violating human rights and perpetrating atrocities at home or abroad – undermines the credibility of the HRC. States elected to the HRC are supposed to demonstrate their commitment to the highest standards of human rights, including their full cooperation with all UN mechanisms. These are conditions set forth in UN General Assembly Resolution 60/251. The fact that potential mass atrocity crimes are being perpetrated by a number of HRC member states is deeply disturbing. The Global Centre has compiled profiles on each of the newly elected Human Rights Council members. These provide a basic overview of their commitment to prevent mass atrocities by protecting and promoting human rights.
Topic:
Human Rights, United Nations, Elections, and Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
Political Geography:
Malaysia, India, Finland, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Argentina, Qatar, Somalia, Honduras, Montenegro, Paraguay, Eritrea, United Arab Emirates, Luxembourg, Cameroon, United States of America, Benin, and Gambia

65. The Presidential and Congressional Elections of 2020: A National Referendum on the Trump Presidency

Author:
Gary C. Jacobson
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Political Science Quarterly
Institution:
Academy of Political Science
Abstract:
GARY C. JACOBSON discusses the 2020 presidential and congressional elections. He argues that the elections were above all a referendum on Donald Trump’s presidency, which provoked extreme levels of party loyalty, partisan polarization, and partisan animosity in the electorate, as well as the highest voter turnout in more than a century.
Topic:
Elections, Voting, Donald Trump, Referendum, and Polarization
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

66. COVID-19 and the 2020 US presidential election: Did the pandemic cost Donald Trump reelection?

Author:
Marcus Noland and Eva (Yiwen) Zhang
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
By Election Day 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic had killed 234,244 Americans and caused the sharpest macroeconomic downturn in US history. Hypothetical calculations using county-level electoral data show that in a “no pandemic” scenario or a scenario in which the severity of the pandemic was mitigated by 30 percent, Donald Trump would have lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote. In the 20 percent mitigation scenario, the electoral vote would have been tied, giving Trump a presumptive victory in the House of Representatives. For the second time in a row (and the third time since 2000), the candidate who lost the popular vote would have been elected president of the United States.
Topic:
Government, Politics, Elections, Donald Trump, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

67. The State and Future of U.S.-Belarus Relations

Author:
Andrzej Dąbrowski
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
The Polish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
The development of U.S.-Belarus relations has been hampered by the events following the Belarusian presidential election in August 2020. In response to the Lukashenka regime’s violation of human rights, the U.S. extended a set of sanctions against the country and will most likely reinstate suspended economic restrictions. At the same time, the Biden administration will expand support for civil society, which creates a point of cooperation with Poland and the EU to coordinate aid activities and build international support for democratic changes in Belarus.
Topic:
Civil Society, Human Rights, Bilateral Relations, and Elections
Political Geography:
Eurasia, North America, Belarus, and United States of America

68. US foreign policy in the Balkans: new chapter

Author:
Vuk Vuksanovic
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Belgrade Centre for Security Policy (BCSP)
Abstract:
What challenges the new American administration will face in the Balkans, and how should it approach them? Read in the latest analysis of BCSP researcher Vuk Vuksanović. When Joseph Biden defeated Donald Trump in the 2020 US presidential elections, the Balkan countries were not neutral on that race. Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić made a failed bet on Trump, hoping that under Trump, he will get a less painful settlement of the Kosovo dispute and an opportunity to finally make Belgrade a partner of Washington, after several decades. Vučić still congratulated Biden for his win alongside several other Balkan leaders who were probably happier about Biden’s win than him. US foreign policy towards the Balkans under Trump has been marked by transactional logic and disdain towards the European Union, best symbolised in the economic normalisation agreement between Belgrade and Priština brokered in September 2020 by Trump. Many policy hands, including Nicholas Burns, former US diplomat and one of Biden’s advisors, now expect that Biden will display US leadership in the region while cooperating closely with the European Union. The US foreign policy will have to deal with three sets of challenges: the unresolved Kosovo dispute, democratic backsliding in the region, and the presence of non-Western powers like Russia and China. While US power is a necessary element in resolving these challenges, the Biden administration will not be able to offer quick fixes.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Governance, Elections, and Leadership
Political Geography:
Europe, Serbia, North America, and United States of America

69. Spies and Money: Legal Defenses Against Foreign Interference in Political Campaigns

Author:
Jessica Brandt and Josh Rudolph
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
In recent years, U.S. government officials have normalized a damaging notion: that soliciting or participating in foreign interference in a U.S. election will not be prosecuted. Foreign governments from Beijing to Moscow and elsewhere are watching closely, and unless Congress and the new administration act quickly to close loopholes in the current U.S. legal framework governing political campaigns, every major U.S. election could be undermined by foreign interference that is not prohibited by U.S. law. A new legal framework around political campaigns is sorely needed—one that provides a proactive and holistic approach to foreign interference rooted in the need to protect U.S. national security.
Topic:
National Security, Politics, Elections, and Foreign Interference
Political Geography:
United States of America

70. Defending 2020: What Worked, What Didn’t, and What’s Next

Author:
Jessica Brandt and Bradley Hanlon
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
The 2016 presidential election served as a wakeup call to the threat of authoritarian interference, and in the years since, many segments of American society—from the federal government to private companies and civil society groups—have taken valuable steps to prepare for and counter it. Congress and the Executive Branch stood up a new government agency and multiple coordinating bodies to protect election infrastructure, while social media platforms have instituted policies to restrict the manipulation of advertisements, label misleading and false content, and slow the spread of disinformation. Working together, civil society instituted new cross-sector coordination mechanisms for election security. Yet longstanding vulnerabilities—including crippling political polarization and underfunded election jurisdictions—persist. A series of high-profile failures to prosecute the solicitation of foreign interference in U.S. elections further threaten to solidify a dangerous new norm. Meanwhile, the threat landscape is growing more dynamic. New actors, including China and Iran, have taken an interest in adopting elements of Russia’s information manipulation playbook. And that playbook is itself evolving. In 2020, Russia and Iran took active steps to influence U.S. voters, engaging in information operations—at times augmented by cyberattacks—to denigrate candidates, sow chaos and division, and reduce trust in democratic institutions.1 New players, including Cuba, Venezuela, and other, non-state actors also took steps to influence voters and attack election infrastructure.
Topic:
Infrastructure, Authoritarianism, Elections, Disinformation, and Foreign Interference
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Iran, and United States of America