Political Reality

1. 🚪 Broockman and Kalla, “Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing” (the excellent paper that’s a great model for field experiments on this topic)https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aad9713     🧠 a. In general, Joshua Kalla and David Broockman’s work (joint and separate) is worth checking out, both on political persuasion and other topics (mostly connected to political attitudes one way or another).     https://joshuakalla.com/research/     https://polisci.berkeley.edu/people/person/david-edward-broockman     🧪 b. I particularly recommend their work as great examples of using experiments in political science     👂 c. Some of the remaining open questions about the role of listening in political persuasion conversations are discussed thoughtfully here.     https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2421982122 2. ⚠️ The retracted paper we mentioned and a brief article about the retraction. Even more gory details about the retraction.     📄 Paper:     https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1256151     📰 Article:     https://www.science.org/content/article/science-retracts-gay-marriage-paper-without-agreement-lead-author-lacour     🔍 More details:     https://retractionwatch.com/2025/06/06/same-sex-marriage-retraction-political-science-study-lacour-green-broockman-kalla/     📚 a. The more senior coauthor on the retracted paper is quite prolific on persuasion specifically in the context of political campaigns and also recently in the context of AI; his other work has not been retracted as far as we know!     https://donaldgreen.com 3. 📊 A comprehensive recent overview of the state of the research on persuasion, including what we don’t know and why some of the pieces don’t quite fit together stillhttps://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-110428 4. 🌱 Broader, more background review paper on where political preferences come from in the first place and what affects them. (We didn’t talk about this specifically, I just think it’s interesting and helpful — and reflects earlier thinking that shaped much of the more recent research.)https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.1 5. 💻 Experiment on reducing antisemitism, measured in terms of online browsing behavior after an interventionhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-experimental-political-science/article/combating-hateful-attitudes-and-online-browsing-behavior-the-case-of-antisemitism/05E860416F9D0B7EFEFA0AABDB88C33D 6. 📰 We may have cited him in other episodes, but Adam Berinsky’s work on combatting misinformation is always in the background whenever we talk about media, misinformation, social media, changing minds – anything along that theme – and is always worth a look.https://berinsky.mit.edu/published-papers/#overlay-context=research

https://politicalrealitypodcast.com Show Notes for Voter ID Ep. 📄 Riker and Ordeshook, “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting” (paper where the key equation came from):https://www.jstor.org/stable/1953324 ⚡ World’s briefest summary of the above:https://adambrown.info/p/notes/riker_and_ordeshook_a_theory_of_the_calculus_of_voting 📊 Meta-study of papers that built from this earlier work (alas, it’s behind a paywall, I’m sorry):https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379412001527 📚 “Classic” (2008 lol cry) review of research on convenience voting:https://www.annualreviews.org/docserver/fulltext/pl/11/1/annurev.polisci.11.053006.190912.pdf?expires=1774472398&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=4CCCEB2034EED20DCF150C7F87AD6286 ➕ plus some specific papers (there are lots more out there but this is a decent start):     🧠 People with greater political knowledge are more likely to use convenience voting:     https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17457289.2020.1814308     ⚖️ Convenience voting can exacerbate socioeconomic biases in composition of voters:     https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.mit.edu/dist/9/583/files/2026/01/perverseconsequences_2005.pdf     📬 Voting by mail increases turnout but does so differently across groups:     https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.mit.edu/dist/9/583/files/2026/01/whovotesbymail_2001.pdf 🏛️ Background on the SAVE act:     🔎 https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/five-things-to-know-about-the-save-act/     📰 https://www.ncsl.org/state-legislatures-news/details/9-things-to-know-about-the-proposed-save-america-act     ⚠️ https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/new-save-act-bills-would-still-block-millions-americans-voting 📜 The SAVE act itself:https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22/text 🗺️ Voter ID laws by state:https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state ⚖️ Discussion of the constitutionality and legality of the SAVE act:https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/the-supreme-court-and-voting-identification/ 💸 Discussion of the poll tax issue regarding the SAVE act:https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/5757040-save-act-voter-id-debate/

Show Notes Coming Soon

📰 Reporting on extent to which 2025 US strikes “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckglxwp5x03o ⚛️ Details about Iran’s uranium enriched to 60%: https://www.armscontrol.org/issue-briefs/2026-03/us-war-iran-new-and-lingering-nuclear-risks 📄 March 2026 Congressional report about Iran’s nuclear capabilities: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12665 ☢️ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reporting on Iran’s nuclear activities and uranium stockpiles: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iran/iaea-and-iran-iaea-board-reports 🛰️ Satellite imagery of the Feb. 28, 2026, school strike in Iran: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/05/world/middleeast/iran-school-us-strikes-naval-base.html 🚀 Evidence that the school was struck by a US Tomahawk cruise missile: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/08/world/middleeast/iran-minab-school-strike.html 📺 Reporter Jeremy Vine correcting himself about the dancing video: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tv/article-15616555/jeremy-vine-alan-partridge-iran-blunder-channel-5.html 🤖 Examples of AI-generated war videos and photos: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg8wvz427vo 🐦 Example of a “shallowfake” posted on X: https://x.com/TehranTimes79/status/2027766149862117731? 🎬 Examples of “hype” videos shared by the US government: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/07/trump-iran-hype-videos 🔍 BBC verify: https://www.bbc.com/news/bbcverify

A preview of a conversation about whether media fuels outrage or simply reflects our views. They compare headline framing and a fact disagreement to show how presentation shapes perception. A low-profile EPA policy change and its climate implications are flagged. Research on media-driven emotional polarization and the chicken-or-egg question of influence is introduced.

Seth Masket, professor of political science at the University of Denver who studies parties and nominations, joins to discuss how parties function and who really makes decisions. Short takes cover parties as coalitions, why Republican insiders lost control, progressive insurgencies, how parties interpret losses, and how activists can shape post-loss narratives.

Full Episode https://www.patreon.com/posts/can-we-vote-our-151099132 https://patreon.com/politicalreality Further Reading & Resources on Voting Theory 📘 1. Kenneth Arrow's amazing 1951 book, Social Choice and Individual Values: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300179316/social-choice-and-individual-values/ a. A good writeup of the basics of the math if you don't want to buy a book: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arrows-theorem/ 🧠 2. Arrow's 1950 paper introducing the idea (this paper is magnificent and you simply must read it): https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/256963 a. Non-paywalled version: https://www.stat.uchicago.edu/~lekheng/meetings/mathofranking/ref/arrow.pdf 🔄 3. A nice primer on Condorcet's Paradox: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/14-75-political-economy-and-economic-development-fall-2012/a9fd8e5ab75a325016094e6bbe625b2a_MIT14_75F12_Lec12.pdf a. Even more on the math of voting systems: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting-methods/ 🗳️ 4. Early work on approval voting by Steve Brams, a leading thinker on it: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/approval-voting/7CE5DEEE235794B0B12F76ADAE621482 a. Video of Brams talking about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZiS3U7EG0M b. Uh oh! It's a video from forever ago of Andrea interviewing Brams about approval voting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAlxoW8WLX4 🏛️ 5. Some prominent advocacy groups on voting system reform: a. Approval voting: https://electionscience.org/ b. Ranked-choice voting: https://fairvote.org/ 🎓 6. Political science professor Lindsey Cormack speaking (admittedly briefly in these clips) about some tradeoffs around Ranked-Choice Voting (sneak preview, she'll be a guest on the show in the not-so-distant future; her instagram @howtoraiseacitizen is also a great resource on civics, politics, and current events (e.g., the SAVE act; more on that soon, too)): a. https://www.instagram.com/p/DLGXzYVMOyX/?hl=en b. https://www.instagram.com/p/DLPkrogss5K/?hl=en

Tom Pepinsky, Cornell professor and Brookings fellow who studies democratic backsliding and populism, joins to unpack fascist traits and threats. He contrasts fascism with populism. He maps hierarchy, nationalism, spectacle, and organized coercion. He discusses who embodies these tendencies in contemporary politics and outlines civic steps to bolster pluralism and democracy.

Conversation tackles whether political polarization is real or overstated. They compare party identity, ideology, and affective divides. The hosts examine measurements like trust indexes and public opinion on abortion, LGBTQ laws, and spending. Historical party sorting and its implications for leaders and the public get attention.

They dig into historical immigration numbers and who counts as an immigrant. They unpack unauthorized categories, ICE arrests, and how enforcement has changed. They compare crime data with public fear and examine shifting public opinion using ANES and Pew findings. They explore policy alternatives, asylum processing fixes, and how narratives and misinformation shape partisan divides.