I need to see the 1960 presidential election results broken up by congressional district. Any time I try to look it up on Google, all I get is the results for the House races. If this isn’t the right subreddit id appreciate it if you linked some better ones. Thanks!

In the United States, France, and South Korea, their constitutions vest the power of pardon in the president. However, in Japan, the constitution stipulates that the Cabinet has the authority to decide on pardons.

However, I believe that the executive branch should not hold the power of pardon; only the legislature should have this authority.

The original purpose of a pardon is to show clemency to offenders who may deserve forgiveness. Whether an offender merits such forgiveness is a matter for public opinion, and the legislature represents the will of the people.

Therefore, the legislature, as the representative of public sentiment, should exercise the "power of forgiveness" on behalf of the people, rather than leaving the power of pardon to the executive branch. Legislators should propose pardons, and they should only be enacted if approved by a majority in the parliament.

When the power of pardon rests with the president, it risks becoming purely a political tool. Presidents may sometimes abuse this power for their own political gain. For instance, Trump pardoned his daughter's father-in-law, and Biden pardoned his own son.

Hello! I have to write an essay for my Eastern Europe polisci course. It has to focus on the accuracy of the labels of "postcommunist" countries and grouping "eastern" and "central" European countries together as a "homogenous" group. I wanted to provide case examples of countries that are grouped but have very diverging political experiences to further my point that these labels are indeed misguided. Could you suggest some that you think will be relevant to my essay? Specific countries' experiences that are especially distinct and therefore contribute to my thesis that grouping post-communist countries under the same label is no longer a proper way to study the region.

If you have any journal articles on this I would be very interested in reading them, too!

apologies if this isnt the right subreddit (& please lmk where this would be more appropriate bcs im struggling!!)

ive searched online but cant find a reliable definition or if it fits the context im using it in -- im writing an essay for english literature regarding a character that transcends the political systems it originated from (AM from i have no mouth and i must scream). thank u so much if anyones able to help!

I’m poli-sci major and while I still don’t know what job I would like to have with that degree I came to thinking, since I’m really shy and introverted, would I even do well in a career that’s so extroverted? Am I wasting my time getting this degree?

More so, I read somewhere that it has emerged as a response to liberalism, yet it is post-postivist. How can it be possible?

I have done such tests for a long time, and all tests have their own things they measure, the way they measure, what they measure, how they measure and what weights they give to which questions and answers.

Of course some tests obscure more than they inform, and have their own leanings and are country specific (as virtually all test creators are US or Western).

If you have the time and the inclination to go through my hundreds of test outcomes, I'd be really curious to know what you think, and if you have any insights.

(Some data here, i.e., maybe extraneous, however don't consider tests that cover psyche or manners of behaviour as extraneous, as they have arguably a link to political outcome, thanks)

And finally, what can you make of the nature of these political tests, are any of them conducive to getting a better understanding?

Here's the link:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1hlOaBLeW7LmK5Wdf1mlICdPSpeJlXJUd

I was reading this article in the Economist (British MPs vote in favour of assisted dying https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/11/29/british-mps-vote-in-favour-of-assisted-dying From The Economist) and we overrated by the paragraph towards the end which states "One big consideration will be how to engage with the Welsh government, after the Senedd voted to reject a similar motion in October (health care is devolved in Wales).".

What is the interplay of this bill with Welsh devolution should it pass? Since England and Wales are a single jurisdiction, could an independent medical practice in Cardiff be legally covered if they choose to offer assisted dying even though the Senedd voted against it? Or, due to the vote in the Senedd, would it not be possible to offer assisted dying in Wales?

In a counterfactual, if the Senedd had voted in favour of it but Westminster had not (through not having debated it at all or explicitly voted against), what impact would that have had on NHS services in Wales?

Was thinking about this topic the last few days. The popular notion by constitutional experts and most people alike is that the guardrails of our democracy and constitution are too much for Trump to overcome to become a literal dictator for life. I do believe that to be the case as well.

But let's say he attempts to stay in office as the end of his term approaches in 2028. A lawsuit is brought before the courts asking them to allow him to stay in office or to at least run for re-election again. I think it's obvious that even this corrupt SCOTUS will tell him no or at least rule that he can't without a constitutional amendment. Either such ruling of course would be fair and correct.

Here is where I see it kind of getting complicated. Say he is determined not to leave. What is stopping him? The court is not an enforcement entity. And neither is congress. Our enforcement apparatus of the government is essentially DOJ. The FBI reports to the AG as do the federal marshals who would likely be the ones to need to physically remove a POTUS who is refusing to leave the White House. If his AG is a loyaltist who is a lunatic and is in lock step with Donald every inch of the way, who is stopping him?

There are reports that he intends to replace our military generals also with loyalists. Not sure how deep into their ranks he intends on taking that, but certainly if the very top of the chain of command within the military are loyaltists who are also in lock step with anything Donald wants to do, the military also in theory wouldn't remove him.

I think you can see where I am going with this. Our lawmakers and courts can absolutely refuse Trump's worst impulses to remain in office and become dictator, as the constitution designed them to do. But if the DOJ/AG and military won't play ball with that in good faith as enforcement mechanisms, then what would stop him from simply staying in power with his middle finger up at those institutions?

Am I wrong?

So I am planning to make a research proposal on the pervasive presence of clientelism and patronage in the Indian democracy at the local or 3rd tier of state apparatus. Later in the proposal I plan to show how economic development through the liberalisation reforms in 1991 and development has shifted the contours of politics beyond clientelism (although not completely) into the programmatic domain with the dawn of citizen-centric schemes and governance .

Would like some help from fellow political science enthusiasts in suggesting the literature already available on this topic . While I have found some on clientelism in India but finding works on programmatic politics has been a bottleneck in my literature review.

For some time I'm thinking about how I could do a research in the context of Political Science that deals with bioethics, but in general it seems that dealing with bioethics is easier regarding research in Law or Philosophy. The problem with this is that my main preference would be to do a Master's in the PoliSci department, so I'm conflicted about what should be my next steps.

Just like the title says.

Which government is likely to work?

If you look at the top 20 countries by gdp in the 1990s you would see the most influential countries

Now, we have 3 countries in top 20 that completely lack soft power despite having very large economies:

-China in 2nd: China has cultural exports literally equal to Sweden according to me despite having 1.4 billion people and medium standard of living but at least could be justified by the authoritarian regime, and American social media being banned

-India in 5th: except for some Bollywood movies, absolutely nothing globally except for cultural exports to Bangladesh and Pakistan, despite being open and integrated and having a big enough urban population. Even the Indians I hear about live in the UK and their number is like 6 million and somehow they are more influential than 1.4 billion people

Indonesia in 16th: I don’t even know what Indonesian culture is, I am not even joking. You would expect more from a country with 279 million people and a metropolitan city like Jakarta

Furthermore, there is countries in top 20 that have soft power but only partially as it is still not as strong as their economic influence:

These include: Germany, Brazil, Russia, Australia, Netherlands

I will not put the US and Western Europe in the comparison for the obvious differences in historical conditions, but it sometimes I think about how was Argentina was a relatively developed country 100 ago and Brazil is a 200 million country that is always labeled as a future power, yet China was able to recover from WW2 and eclipse both of them and now is the constant talks about being a genuine rival with the USA and India it seems to follow a path with a higher ceiling than both Argentina and Brazil.

Nevermind Russia, that even after the fall of the USSR and years of economic stagnation seems to have more eyes on them than any Latam country.

I'm a graduate student who is incredibly passionate about politics, especially international relations. However, as Christmas break is nearly here, I want to take a break from any and all academic reading. While I enjoy it, it is really, and I mean really, taxing mentally and I am looking for a relaxing and engaging palate cleanser to help me unwind before returning to school in January.

I'm not looking for novels that are simply political, since from what I know, many already are. Instead, I'm interested in anything that actively deals with common themes in international relations (e.g. the security dilemma, questions of war and peace, human nature, the dangers of unchecked idealism, the pitfalls of foreign intervention, etc.). I'm also a realist, if it helps narrow down any suggestions you may have.

Thanks in advance everyone!

Hi, I'm curious if studying political science has benefitted anyone personally. Since it's more of IR, governmental relations etc, I'd assume you can benefit the world around you but not yourself, which makes me wonder if anyone has learned something that helped you in your life. Similar to how learning anatomy can help others and yourself or how learning psychology can lead to deep personal reflection, how does studying political science help you or the others around you?

I'm in a dilemma where I'm equally interested in journalism and political science as a college major/career. I was wondering if anyone has any experience with political journalism or knows how lucrative the field is.

Hey my fellow PoliSci students! So I'm currently a first semester political science student in Germany. One of my introductory courses is political theory and to be honest, it's a lot of history and philosophy which is not something I really like. Nevermind, for the exam we will be given several questions of which we have to choose two to write an essay on. Now I'm kind of scared as I'm not sure how to really write a good essay on political theory. If some of you got any tips they'd be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

I don’t specifically mean Masters of Political Science degrees (though those answers are welcome as well). I just want to know what grad programs are out there that I might be interested in.

I was originally planning on law school, but after a 2-year gap after my undergrad, I want to keep other options open and I’m looking for other programs that might interest me. Any suggestions for programs out there that you have loved?

I’m open to just about anything that a PoliSci major could realistically transition into.

The definition of liberalism seems to encompass both those parties. Rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed etc…

I am looking for information/graphs that shows voter turnout for presidential elections by race, age, and preferably income/education, preferably info that dates back a few decades.

I'm curious if there is any literature on what a leader can do when their constituency is extremely fired up about something. For example, the tensions that ultimately overthrew the Shah: overthrowing the Shah did not bring what many of the revolutionaries wanted, e.g. liberal freedoms, but at the time they were convinced that bringing the ayatollahs to power was the right move. Or, the tensions that ultimately boiled over into the French revolution; was there any clever political machinations that could have potentially diffused things? E.g. redirect the anger to another group, appoint an officially legitimate way to air the grievances, etc. Of course opening fire Tiananmen-Square-style is always an option, but I'm curious about political avenues of calming tension.

Democracy gets lot of criticism for being slower and how autocratic form of government is ultimately much faster and effective.

Democracy requires debates, public feedbacks, fund discussions etc...

What are yr thoughts? I feel Democracy is better in this case. Country like Finland offer high standards of education and living. Belgium also happened to prove that democracy is also much better form of government in handling internal disputes and even community disputes are much handled better in democracy overall than in dictatorship

Just like the title says. Would an ideal dictatorship even be feasible in real life or is it more of a theoretical concept(?)

I can't think of a diverse country like India under a dictatorship because it's pretty much impossible for a dictator to administrate and safeguard rights of different communities.

I still think Democracy would be much better. I mean, if a democracy is corrupt...it's more in the fault in its execution and the institution, right?