Suchergebnisse

AbstractObjective: Nonviolent protests have been at the center of minority interest advocacy for nearly a century, as marginalized communities air their grievances in search for substantive policy change. While groups organize and demonstrate in a peaceful manner, there is no guarantee that onlookers will perceive them as such. We find it necessary to explore what factors shape perceptions of social movement protests and how the racial composition of a demonstration can elicit dramatically different responses from onlookers.Methods: To examine the impact of racial identity on protest evaluations, we conduct a survey experiment on a total of 921 respondents. We simulate a media report concerning a Black Lives Matter protest to determine how subtle changes in the racial composition of the demonstration elicit varying perceptions of a potential for violence.Results: We find that protests that comprise all‐Black participants are perceived to have a higher probability to end in violence than more diverse demonstrations. These findings come despite an assurance that the protest in question was peaceful. Consistent with minority threat theory, these perceptions are largely driven by the sentiments of white respondents.Conclusion: We argue that ill‐conceived threat perceptions, rooted in the racial composition of Black Lives Matter protests, complicate the mission of those charged with making visible the plight of Black Americans. Even when Black protesters adhere to the "rules" of non‐violent protest, there is no guarantee that the biases of onlookers will not drown out their efforts. These findings have wide reaching implications on the exercise of First Amendment right to protest, the role of the media in reporting on protests, and the expectations of government interactions with protesters.

ABSTRACTAmericans are engaged in a heated, sometimes violent, debate over the fate of Confederate monuments. As communities decide whether to remove these monuments, elected and appointed officials typically have had the final say. What if instead of allowing elected officials to make such decisions, voters had the power? Would this affect how the public feels about the outcome, win or lose? We used a survey experiment to examine whether the mode of decision making affects public attitudes, testing the effects of a decision made by public referendum versus by a city council. We found that respondents view decisions made by referendum to be fairer and more legitimate and allow multiple perspectives to be heard. These results hold even for respondents who oppose the referendum's outcome. Our results speak to the potential of direct democracy to enhance public acceptance of decisions, particularly when the public is divided.

The book provides timely analyses of overarching themes (voting laws, campaign finance and redistricting) from the 2012 campaign cycle as well as case studies of important 2012 congressional races. Collectively the concepts and cases will give college undergraduate students a compelling narrative explanation of America's electoral process and the keys to winning vital elections