In other words: The turnout gap between those who are pro-socially motivated and those who are more self-interested widens as the number of eligible voters increases (and the chance of casting the decisive vote shrinks). [7/7]
In other words: The turnout gap between those who are pro-socially motivated and those who are more self-interested widens as the number of eligible voters increases (and the chance of casting the decisive vote shrinks). [7/7]
π FINDINGS:
1) For non-donors, we see a clear drop in turnout the larger municipality they move to β
2) The turnout of pro-social individuals (donors) is far less affected by the size of their municipality π [6/7]
We use data on charitable donationsπ to proxy pro-social motivations, and analyze what happens to individuals' turnout when they move between municipalities of different sizes π [5/7]
In local elections in small Norwegian municipalities, a handful of votes can often tip mandates. In large cities, the probability of being decisive is negligible. This variation is key. [4/7]
Using admin data from Norway, we perform the first test of the hypothesis that the turnout **gap** between more/less pro-social voters widens with electorate size [3/7]
This 'paradox of voting' has long puzzled social scientists π€―
Key theories propose that pro-social motives (like altruism or a sense of civic duty) gets people to participate even when the chance of influencing the election is small [2/7]
Very happy to share my first publication! π₯³
It's published in @jpube.bsky.social (w/ Benny Geys & Rune SΓΈrensen) and tackles a classic question:
Why do people vote in large elections, when the probability of casting a pivotal vote is virtually zero? π³οΈ
www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
[1/7]
Kritikken mot Γ₯ bruke tilfeldig utvalg for Γ₯ teste skattegrep for unge avslΓΈrer Γ©n ting: Manglende forstΓ₯else for kunnskapsbasert politikk. Vi trenger mer eksperimentering, ikke mindre. Samfunnet bΓΈr styres av evidens β ikke antakelser.
www.aftenposten.no/meninger/deb...
Again and again I hear on social media and read in newspapers that gas replaced coal in the UK.
That's simply not the case.
In 2024:
π 43% less electricity generation was from gas than in 2000. π Wind + solar increased more than 100x
π« Coal is now zero
Source is @ember-energy.org
FIT Seminar 29 Jan at 1 pm (EET) with Janne Tukiainen @jannetukiainen.bsky.social
Theme: Party Factions and Candidate Selection
(with @christinebangum.bsky.social @fiva.no @ginvernizzi.bsky.social @carloprato.bsky.social)
Welcome on site at Tampere University or in Zoom tuni.zoom.us/j/65804313290!
British politics is quietly going through an insane period. The main parties are *remarkably* unpopular
www.economist.com/britain/2024...