Grilled Cheese

ExploreLog inSign up
Terms of UsePrivacy PolicyCommunity StandardsHelpGet the app

Grilled Cheese is a product of Village Compute

Version devBuilt at: 2026-10-10 01:38:52 EDT

Explore

PostsPeople
LatestRanked
@polstudies.bsky.socialOct 8, 2026, 11:01 AM

When conflict forces people from their homes, does it change how they vote? @galbitton.bsky.social finds that displaced residents shift rightward in their political identity, but don't change their vote. Read more: buff.ly/Qv5xJMw

@polstudiesassoc.bsky.social #researchnote #ConflictPolitics

@balloons2drones.bsky.socialOct 3, 2026, 10:32 AM

#fromthearchives - #ResearchNote – Redefining the Modern Military: An Airman’s Perspective by @brianlaslie.bsky.social balloonstodrones.com/2018/10/03/r...

@polstudies.bsky.socialSep 29, 2026, 5:01 PM

When conflict forces people from their homes, does it change how they vote? @galbitton.bsky.social finds that displaced residents shift rightward in their political identity, but don't change their vote. Read more: buff.ly/Qv5xJMw

@polstudiesassoc.bsky.social #researchnote #ConflictPolitics

Abstract Does exposure to conflict displacement amplify support for far-right parties? This study investigates the political consequences of conflict-induced displacement in northern Israel by exploiting a natural experiment arising from government-ordered evacuations during military conflicts. Using a pre-registered survey and a regression discontinuity design based on an exogenous 5 km threshold, I assess changes in retrospective and prospective voting behavior as well as self-reported political ideology. The analysis reveals no evidence that displacement increases far-right support or induces partisan realignment. Rather, evacuees demonstrate a modest rightward shift in ideological self-placement without corresponding changes in voting behavior. This divergence suggests that displacement influences symbolic political positioning without prompting corresponding changes in voting behavior. These patterns unfold against a broader backdrop of political frustration and electoral disengagement that affects both displaced and non-displaced populations. The findings reveal troubling implications for democratic accountability during external conflict: leaders may be shielded from electoral consequences of security failures even as civic engagement deteriorates, challenging models of wartime accountability.
@polstudies.bsky.socialSep 23, 2026, 11:02 AM

Who supports martial law in a democracy? Brandon Beomseob Park & Inkwan Chung examine South Korea, finding affective polarization drives support for executive overreach. Read more: buff.ly/63rPmga

@polstudiesassoc.bsky.social #polsky #polsci #AffectivePolarization #ResearchNote

@balloons2drones.bsky.socialSep 13, 2026, 11:37 AM

#fromthearchives - #ResearchNote - Wither Air Power Studies? balloonstodrones.com/2017/09/13/r... #airpowerstudies

@polstudies.bsky.socialSep 10, 2026, 5:02 PM

Who supports martial law in a democracy? Brandon Beomseob Park & Inkwan Chung examine South Korea, finding affective polarization drives support for executive overreach. Read more: buff.ly/63rPmga

@polstudiesassoc.bsky.social #polsky #polsci #AffectivePolarization #ResearchNote

Abstract On 3 December 2024, South Korea experienced an unprecedented political crisis when the president declared martial law. While the declaration was rapidly reversed and condemned by key democratic institutions, public opinion did not converge on rejection. Instead, support for—and tolerance of—the measure persisted among a nontrivial share of citizens. Why, in a democracy with functioning institutions, are some citizens willing to accept extraordinary executive measures? Using original nationwide survey data, this research shows that public support for martial law is strongly associated with affective polarization. Individuals who express strong partisan and leader-based affective alignment with the incumbent are significantly more likely to accept martial law, while those polarized in the opposite direction overwhelmingly reject it. The findings suggest that affective polarization can align evaluations of executive overreach with partisan loyalties, weakening normative constraints even in consolidated democracies where institutional safeguards continue to function effectively.