Elections

State supreme court judges who rely on public financing to fund their elections become less likely to favor attorneys who have donated to their campaigns in the past, a 2016 study suggests.

Politicians in developing democracies appear more likely to win reelection if they claim to have secured foreign aid, even if they had nothing to do with it.

One of the core ideas of American government is that coequal, separate branches serve to balance out one another, reducing the abuse of power and the potential for corruption. Though this theory can seem self-evidently valid, little research has been conducted on how the separation of powers may be stronger or weaker in particular cases.

With the final stretch of the 2012 presidential election now here, some central research-oriented questions that are traditionally asked about campaigns are coming to the fore. These areas include: the state of the economy and its effects on electoral outcomes; the role of money and the power of ads; the impact of the candidate debates; the effectiveness of the campaigns’ “ground games”;  and the potential for “coattail” effects down the ballot.

People are unlikely to bet against their own preferences in sports or politics, new research suggests, even when such “emotional hedging” may be in their interest.

The issue: Imagine you are offered to bet against your ideal political candidate or favorite team — to bet the Yankees will beat the Red Sox when you are an incorrigible Sox fan, for example, or your favorite politician for president. What’s more, the bet is free. No need to lay out any cash; there’s no risk to you.

The 2016 presidential election cycle has been filled with speculation about what could happen at the Republican and Democratic party conventions this summer, given the highly contested nature of both primaries.