Editing Mares Young 2016

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 110: Line 110:
** These explanations refer to voters' partisan preferences, socioeconomic status, and psychological attributes
** These explanations refer to voters' partisan preferences, socioeconomic status, and psychological attributes
   
   
*Policy or Partisan preference
*POLICY OR PARTISAN PREFERENCE
   
   
*Arguments on Partisan Preference:
*Arguments on Partisan Preference:
Line 145: Line 145:


*The effectiveness of electoral violence can partly be explained by how different psychological predispositions among citizens influence their reaction to threats or violence, suggesting varied emotional responses across different demographic groups.
*The effectiveness of electoral violence can partly be explained by how different psychological predispositions among citizens influence their reaction to threats or violence, suggesting varied emotional responses across different demographic groups.




*Summary
*Summary
**As trade-off and clientelistic mobilization was at the center of electoral processes, studies have been attempting to further disaggregate the types of clientelistic echnages that we can be seen done by brokers with candidates and voters. Questions such as “what are the most salient variables that explain variation across countries, regions, and localities in the mix of clientelistic strategies?” and “who are the voters being targetted by different clientelistic strategies?”. TTherefore Mares & Young seek to gain a further understanding of how local leaders/ brokers are important during elections and what changes are possible to shift influence strategies, as well as understanding when voters are more likely to support particular candidates if those relations are viewed as gifts or threats.
**As trade-off and clientelistic mobilization was at the center of electoral processes, studies have been attempting to further disaggregate the types of clientelistic echnages that we can be seen done by brokers with candidates and voters. Questions such as “what are the most salient variables that explain variation across countries, regions, and localities in the mix of clientelistic strategies?” and “who are the voters being targetted by different clientelistic strategies?”. TTherefore Mares & Young seek to gain a further understanding of how local leaders/ brokers are important during elections and what changes are possible to shift influence strategies, as well as understanding when voters are more likely to support particular candidates if those relations are viewed as gifts or threats.
Please note that all contributions to Projecting Power may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Projecting Power:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)