Electoral democracy and structural injustice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Masin‐Peters
Keyword(s):  
Structural Injustice ◽  
Electoral Democracy

Female Representation in Colombia

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mónica Pachón ◽  
Santiago E. Lacouture
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Political Context ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Female Representation ◽  
Political Arena ◽  
Substantive Representation ◽  
Representation Of Women ◽  
Electoral Democracy ◽  
Almost All

Mónica Pachón and Santiago E. Lacouture examine the case of Colombia and show that women’s representation has been low and remains low in most arenas of representation and across national and subnational levels of government. The authors identify institutions and the highly personalized Colombian political context as the primary reasons for this. Despite the fact that Colombia was an electoral democracy through almost all of the twentieth century, it was one of the last countries in the region to grant women political rights. Still, even given women’s small numbers, they do bring women’s issues to the political arena. Pachón and Lacoutre show that women are more likely to sponsor bills on women-focused topics, which may ultimately lead to greater substantive representation of women in Colombia.

scholarly journals Proceed with Caution

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Annette Zimmermann ◽  
Chad Lee-Stronach
Keyword(s):  
Procedural Justice ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Public Institutions ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Necessary Condition ◽  
Structural Injustice ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Similarity Judgments

Abstract It is becoming more common that the decision-makers in private and public institutions are predictive algorithmic systems, not humans. This article argues that relying on algorithmic systems is procedurally unjust in contexts involving background conditions of structural injustice. Under such nonideal conditions, algorithmic systems, if left to their own devices, cannot meet a necessary condition of procedural justice, because they fail to provide a sufficiently nuanced model of which cases count as relevantly similar. Resolving this problem requires deliberative capacities uniquely available to human agents. After exploring the limitations of existing formal algorithmic fairness strategies, the article argues that procedural justice requires that human agents relying wholly or in part on algorithmic systems proceed with caution: by avoiding doxastic negligence about algorithmic outputs, by exercising deliberative capacities when making similarity judgments, and by suspending belief and gathering additional information in light of higher-order uncertainty.

scholarly journals Winning, Losing, and the Quality of Democracy

2021 ◽  
pp. 003232172110261
Author(s):  
Richard Nadeau ◽  
Jean-François Daoust ◽  
Ruth Dassonneville
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Electoral Systems ◽  
Motivated Reasoning ◽  
Quality Of Democracy ◽  
Electoral Democracy ◽  
Democratic Systems ◽  
The Comparative Study

Citizens who voted for a party that won the election are more satisfied with democracy than those who did not. This winner–loser gap has recently been found to vary with the quality of electoral democracy: the higher the quality of democracy, the smaller the gap. However, we do not know what drives this relationship. Is it driven by losers, winners, or both? And Why? Linking our work to the literature on motivated reasoning and macro salience and benefiting from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems project—covering 163 elections in 51 countries between 1996 and 2018, our results show that the narrower winner–loser gap in well-established electoral democracies is not only a result of losers being more satisfied with democracy, but also of winners being less satisfied with their victory. Our findings carry important implications since a narrow winner–loser gap appears as a key feature of healthy democratic systems.

Politics and population health: Testing the impact of electoral democracy

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 ◽  
pp. 66-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew C. Patterson ◽  
Gerry Veenstra
Keyword(s):  
Population Health ◽  
Electoral Democracy ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals Corrupting the Cyber-Commons: Social Media as a Tool of Autocratic Stability

2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seva Gunitsky
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Rapid Evolution ◽  
Online Discourse ◽  
Public Preferences ◽  
Public Discussion ◽  
Democratic Regimes ◽  
Electoral Democracy ◽  
Autocratic Regimes ◽  
Potential Tool

Non-democratic regimes have increasingly moved beyond merely suppressing online discourse, and are shifting toward proactively subverting and co-opting social media for their own purposes. Namely, social media is increasingly being used to undermine the opposition, to shape the contours of public discussion, and to cheaply gather information about falsified public preferences. Social media is thus becoming not merely an obstacle to autocratic rule but another potential tool of regime durability. I lay out four mechanisms that link social media co-optation to autocratic resilience: 1) counter-mobilization, 2) discourse framing, 3) preference divulgence, and 4) elite coordination. I then detail the recent use of these tactics in mixed and autocratic regimes, with a particular focus on Russia, China, and the Middle East. This rapid evolution of government social media strategies has critical consequences for the future of electoral democracy and state-society relations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document