Top products from r/PoliticalScience

We found 26 product mentions on r/PoliticalScience. We ranked the 99 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/PoliticalScience:

u/hiokme · 1 pointr/PoliticalScience

I don't know if this is anything near what you're looking for but a few days ago, just for kicks and giggles, I wrote down a short list of models to conduct meetings

From Wiki: > Of the 99 state legislative chambers in the United States (two for each state except Nebraska, which has a unicameral legislature),

Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure governs parliamentary procedures in 70;

Jefferson's Manual governs 13,

and Robert's Rules of Order governs four.

The United States Senate follows the Standing Rules of the United States Senate, while the United States House of Representatives follows Jefferson's Manual.

Mason's Manual, originally written by constitutional scholar and former California Senate staff member Paul Mason in 1935, and since his death revised and published by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), governs legislative procedures in instances where the state constitution, state statutes, and the chamber's rules are silent.

According to the NCSL, one of the many reasons that most state legislatures use Mason's Manual instead of Robert's Rules of Order is because Robert's Rules applies best to private organizations and civic groups that do not meet in daily public sessions. Mason's Manual, however, is geared specifically toward state legislative bodies.

Martha's rule of order
Good for small meetings like HOA

Bourinot's Rules of Order
Used in the Canadian parliament

Democratic Rules of Order

GuideStar Consensus Rules of Order

  1. Someone presents an idea. It could be a formal proposal, but most of the time it's just an idea, not yet fully formed.

  2. The idea is passed around and the pros and cons are discussed.

  3. As a result of the discussion—the more input, the better—the idea is often modified.

  4. If a general agreement seems to be emerging (this is where good listening and facilitation skills are helpful), you can test for consensus by restating the latest version of the idea or proposal to see if everybody agrees.

  5. If anyone dissents, you return to the discussion to see if you can modify the idea further to make it acceptable to everyone.

    DEMOCRACY 2.0 by C.D. Madson
    Intended for small organizations/meetings

    lightweight version of Roberts rules of order

    Modern Parliamentary Procedure by Ray Keesey

    The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure by Alice Sturgis

    Larry Susskind Consensus Building
    Outlined in his book, “Breaking Robert's rules” (

    Dynamic Facilitation by Jim Rough

    Roberts' Rules of Order

    Erskine May
    Used in Westminster

    Edit: formatting
u/zacktastic11 · 6 pointsr/PoliticalScience

I'll take number 4.

My favorite intro book on media and politics is Media Politics: A Citizen's Guide by Shanto Iyengar. It's a great textbook for teaching undergrads and covers pretty much everything.

For general theories of how political elites interact with the media, I would recommend Cook's Governing with the News, Patterson's Out of Order, and Zaller's A Theory of Media Politics (It's an unpublished manuscript, so just Google it and it'll come up.)

There's a ton of great work on the concept of media bias, but I'll give you two older works that I think capture the intersection of journalistic norms and coverage really well. Check out Gans's Deciding What's News and Schudson's Discovering the News. There's also work that looks at how economic forces lead to bias. See Hamilton's All the News That's Fit to Sell for an intro to that.

On media effects on behavior, start with Iyengar and Kinder's News that Matters. Beyond that, I'm partial to Graber's Processing the News, Soroka's Negativity in Democratic Politics, and Ladd's Why Americans Hate the Media and How it Matters.

If you're interested in how recent changes to the media environment (cable TV, internet, etc.) have affected things, I would recommend Prior's Post-Broadcast Democracy, Arceneaux and Johnson's Changing Minds or Changing Channels, Levendusky's How Partisan Media Polarize America, and Hindman's The Myth of Digital Democracy.

Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't recommend some Lippmann or some Edelman. Those are for more high-minded/theory-driven thinking about how the media constructs our realities.

I know that's a lot, but there's a ton of stuff I'm cutting out as is (nothing about selective exposure or motivated reasoning, barely touching on the framing literature). If you have any more specific questions about American media, I can probably narrow it down some more.

Oh, and a couple quick recommendations on the other questions (which aren't really my specialty). I really liked Democracy for Realists by Achen and Bartels. Frances Lee's new book on political messaging in Congress is pretty interesting. And I'm a subscriber to the legislative subsidy school of thought on interest groups.

u/FruitbytheFathom · 3 pointsr/PoliticalScience

Political psychology, although typically considered a subfield, covers a wide range of variables (e.g., personality, decision-making, behavior, beliefs, emotion, conflict) from multiple levels of analysis (e.g., individual, group, state, system). Given that your thesis will inevitably consume a great deal of your time and effort, you'll want to focus on an area of political psychology that you find particularly interesting. Here are some resources that can help you pinpoint a topic:

Political Psychology (the most prominent academic journal dedicated to political psychology)
Political psychology (Wikipedia) [the list of prominent political psychologists toward the bottom of the page provides a decent starting point]
The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (Huddy, Sears, & Levy)
Introduction to Political Psychology (Cottam, Dietz-Uhler, Elena Mastors, & Preston)
Political Psychology: Neuroscience, Genetics, and Politics (Marcus)

However, it occurs to me that providing you a few links and telling you to "read!" might not be the most helpful approach, since I'm pointing you toward a forest when you eventually need to locate a specific tree. Does your college/university offer any courses that relate to political psychology? If so, I would consider taking them (or at least reaching out to the professors that offer them). [Note: Even if there aren't classes dedicated to the subject, your university likely has related courses (e.g., American politics, social psychology) that might be useful]. In my opinion, taking courses or talking to professors will likely benefit you even more than independent reading.

And lastly, since you asked, here are some specific areas of research (that I find intriguing), along with relevant recent publications (that I have enjoyed):

• The structure and determinants of political ideologies: 1, 2, 3, 4
• Personality characteristics in the political domain 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
• The dynamics of political information processing: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
• The efficacy of biological and neuroscientific explanations of political behavior: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Maybe one the aforementioned topics will interest you. If not, there are plenty other research foci out there (you might have noticed that I failed to include a topic related to foreign policy, a literature to which I haven't paid much attention recently). Best of luck!

u/maclockhart · 1 pointr/PoliticalScience

There are some real introduction to poli sci textbooks out there, but they are really pretty dry. For instance, I used something like this book when I took a intro to political science course, but it doesn't exactly inspire the level of interest more specific books might. It's useful though because it covers domestic politics, international politics, and political theory and philosophy.

If you just want to look into the US, then Logic of American Politics is a pretty good, albeit dense, place to start. If you want a more global perspective, I'd try out something more like this. I don't really know a good intro to IR or Theory book, but if you're interested in war and how countries interact then look into international relations and if you want to think more about what is "good", "just", or how things should work you might want to look at political theory.

u/wafflegraphs · 1 pointr/PoliticalScience

I'm not sure what level of intro you're wanting, but this might be be good for comparative politics (some of the chapters are a bit dense though): Also this is often assigned or required those going into CP and is an easier read (it's just interviews of how some of the big names in CP feel about their research, the discipline, etc): You can probably find bits of these books around publicly so you don't have to pay for the whole texts if you just want to check them out first. Good luck!

u/Thors_lil_Cuz · 2 pointsr/PoliticalScience

I just so happen to be studying under a couple of authors within the Intro to PoliPsych book mentioned by /u/zaval, so I'm deep into this. If I'm going to be effective in providing some help, though, I need a few more details from you:

First, what topic within political psychology interests you? Are you interested in American politics or international politics? Group behavior or elite decision-making? Psychology of voters?

Second, is your thesis just a review of the field in general? If so, why do you need only recent publications? Much of the stuff being done right now has its roots much further back, so you'll likely need to cite at least a few sources from as far back as the 70s.

Finally, if I had to make some recommendations blind, I'd definitely second the suggestion of the textbook and Haidt. I'd also add the "Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology" and the International Society of Political Psychology's journal, "Political Psychology".

u/megglin · 2 pointsr/PoliticalScience

I think you'd probably be interested in the Oxford Handbook series. I know there are several, but it looks like this one is the overview volume: Hope this helps!

u/Eco_tem_razao · 1 pointr/PoliticalScience

Have you read Paxton? I'm asking because I'm convicend by the others comments that it would be the best option for me (since I don't have too much time for it).

Thank you very much for your attention!

u/DeFUID · 1 pointr/PoliticalScience

Andrew Heywood's "Politics" and "Ideologies" are great introductions.

u/Belaire · 3 pointsr/PoliticalScience

All three of the above aspects in comparative politics are discussed in detail in the Comparative Politics textbook edited by Lichbach.

If you're really interested in learning more, see if your University library carries this book, there's a whole chunk of the textbook about those three categories.

u/pensivegargoyle · 2 pointsr/PoliticalScience

Wikipedia is decent enough for an overview. Have a look at that and you could come back with any more specific questions. You could also check out a book like Political Ideologies: An Introduction by Andrew Heywood.

u/noctua_445 · 1 pointr/PoliticalScience

I've heard this book is supposed to be solid, in terms of Chinese foreign relations. Haven't read it myself though.

u/moh_kohn · 1 pointr/PoliticalScience

I just listened to a Radio War Nerd podcast about this. Unfortunately it's paywalled behind a $5-a-month patreon, though I would certainly recommend the podcast to anyone interested in geopolitics. The interview was with Max Abrahms, who has a book coming out called Rules for Rebels, a quantitative analysis of which factors contribute to the success or failure of a rebel group

u/nunquam99 · 2 pointsr/PoliticalScience

Revel for The Struggle for Democracy, 2018 Elections and Updates Edition -- Access Card (12th Edition)

u/estrtshffl · 3 pointsr/PoliticalScience

> No, people of all political positions come to hold their beliefs because of emotions, rather than rationality.

It's "rational" to pay workers as little as you can so that more profit can be made for shareholders. But I would argue that it's morally abhorrent. That's a political belief informed by ideology - even if it's rational.

I also think you're discounting emotion entirely - and that's really not something you should do.

Try this:

And remember:

>You aren't allow to criticize something you haven't read.

u/diplomasi · 2 pointsr/PoliticalScience

According to Robert Paxton (author of Anatomy of Fascism), fascism in United States would likely be religious

>For example, while a new fascism would necessarily diabolize some enemy, both internal and external, the enemy would not necessarily be Jews. An authentically popular American fascism would be pious, antiblack, and, since September 11, 2001, anti-Islamic as well;

I think Christian Theocratic Republic would manifest itself trough the five stages of fascism as described in the book and article above:

  1. Intellectual exploration, where disillusionment with popular democracy manifests itself in discussions of lost national vigor
  2. Rooting, where a fascist movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player on the national stage
  3. Arrival to power, where conservatives seeking to control rising leftist opposition invite the movement to share power
  4. Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business magnates.
  5. Radicalization or entropy, where the state either becomes increasingly radical, as did Nazi Germany, or slips into traditional authoritarian rule, as did Fascist Italy

    >The language and symbols of an authentic American fascism would, of course, have little to do with the original European models. They would have to be as familiar and reassuring to loyal Americans as the language and symbols of the original fascisms were familiar and reassuring to many Italians and Germans, as Orwell suggested. Hitler and Mussolini, after all, had not tried to seem exotic to their fellow citizens. No swastikas in an American fascism, but Stars and Stripes (or Stars and Bars) and Christian crosses. No fascist salute, but mass recitations of the pledge of allegiance. These symbols contain no whiff of fascism in themselves, of course, but an American fascism would transform them into obligatory litmus tests for detecting the internal enemy.

    ps. I like Paxton's take on fascism. He sees fascism as strategy to achieve power. Fascist movements can
    have very opportunistic turns in their ideology and policies.