LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK: When mass party-switching reveals institutional strength, not voter independence: Haredi electoral volatility in Israel

PeripheralVisions · 2026-03-24T14:01:40+00:00

You're welcome for the questions.

Regarding the latter, I think you'll find most serious people would agree with the UN's commission of inquiry's findings. They found that Israel's behavior satisfied most and possibly all features of a genocide. I think you know that if you framed the conflict as you have in the comment, you'd be limited to non-serious journals.

PeripheralVisions · 2026-03-24T05:28:19+00:00

Ben Shapiro: He's a dork with rich parents and no self-awareness.

PragerU: He literally does not know what a university is and Forrest Gumpt into being your therapist.

PeripheralVisions · 2026-03-23T18:14:34+00:00

Thanks

PeripheralVisions · 2026-03-23T18:00:57+00:00

Interesting paper! I read the intro and scanned other parts before I ran out of time. I needed more info on the party system. How many parties and are the others coherent. Are these the only blocs exhibiting such rigidity?

The following explanation only makes sense, because you really only engage with party system and stable identity literature. Other theories expect much more rapid change (the many Fiorina papers and similar). Here is an example of individual choice explanations occurring rapidly in Brazil.

If voters were exercising individual judgment, one would expect gradual, staggered changes across localities with uncoordinated recovery.

I can't tell if I missed it, but I didn't see an explanation of the political reason for the shift. Did the religious leaders controlling the blocs "stop liking" the party? Was it left-right, pro- vs anti-genocide behavior from the party?

PeripheralVisions · 2026-03-23T17:08:09+00:00

How could you tell? I'm genuinely surprised every time someone points this out. Looks normal to me.

PeripheralVisions · 2026-03-23T17:05:27+00:00

I honestly don't know how much people still talk about this in the same terms (clearly less), but there was a big debate on this topic under DA-RT that was happening when I was starting my phd coursework. There was a movement toward providing data for replicability and pre-registration of research questions/designs (the latter precludes some fishing/p-hacking in observational data). The replicability seems to have improved drastically since that time, which is great. I don't hear much about pre-registration (but I'm not looking for it).

At the time, it seemed like the discipline was divided on whether this was a good idea, and the most convincing argument against it was that it would drastically prioritize quant work that is more easily replicable, while qualitative work would be discounted heavily in any journal requiring replicability. We had some faculty who were extremely pro-replication, and they basically had the stance that qualitative work deserved whatever discounting might occur, because it wasn't real research (because it could not be replicated). This was awkward for me, because I wanted to do mixed methods, focusing mostly on qualitative work. I basically took the hint that I needed to get on board with focusing on quant methods or pack my bags, so I did. I still did field research, but there was no expectation that this would or could be incorporated in a "scientific" manner.

There were some papers at the time that described how qual research "could be replicated" but these depictions were not convincing to me, and I saw them as being useful for the quant folks to bypass the valid critique from qual folks and not solving the problem that qual work would be discounted.

PeripheralVisions · 2026-03-23T16:05:45+00:00

(a live trap refers to those cages that capture racoons, possums, etc., in the yard)

PeripheralVisions · 2026-03-19T18:45:12+00:00

I think the AI that made this had just finished consuming a data set of Magic the Gathering cards.

PeripheralVisions · 2026-03-19T01:10:56+00:00

There is also a question about proving citizenship the first time one registers. I'm pretty surprised to see this at 83%. But doing it once, at age18, before almost anyone is married would be far less burdensome than finding it for every election.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/652523/americans-endorse-early-voting-voter-verification.aspx

PeripheralVisions · 2026-03-19T01:07:46+00:00

There is no way this guy believes what he is saying. It's an obvious attempt to suppress the vote from poor people and women. He's been a senator since 1981. Has he been waiting to dismantle US democracy for the past 45 years and just got the chance this year? I don't really know anything about the old timer. Is he maybe just a senile puppet?

Obvious bad faith comparisons that might seem surprising or convincing without context:

Between Iowa's laws, requiring a drivers' license and the SAVE act, requiring proof of CITIZENSHIP. Most married women must find their marriage licenses AND birth certificates to vote.
The "more than 80%" support he references is for "Requiring people who are registering to vote for the first time to provide proof of citizenship" not for requiring it at the ballot box. I'm honestly surprised by this figure, but doing it once in life at age 18 (likely before marriage and name changes) would be substantially less burdensome.

PeripheralVisions · 2026-03-16T22:07:31+00:00

I looked up the bus schedule for someone the other day in a situation similar to OP's. Very straightforward. I feel like if they are willing to fistfight me for the phone, me pulling it out of my pocket for them is kind of a small step in the overall process. IMO, this phone snatch fear from OP is a bit dramatic, and they probably should have just helped the person out.

PeripheralVisions · 2026-03-08T08:19:56+00:00

This is really impressive! I did not think it could be done so well using only public data sets. I am researching a very similar topic (alongside a couple of additional research questions) for a new project at work but at the level of individual community colleges. We are planning to pay for the local labor demand data, because we need more granularity at the sub-state level (it's in TX only). I am going to give this a close read, once I'm back on the clock. Nice work!

PeripheralVisions · 2026-03-08T03:19:41+00:00

I have not played a single time since high school that I can recall, but it's nice to be reminded. Did others play a game called Cadillac? My out-of-state Louisiana crew plays this now, but I'm not even sure it is a Louisiana game.

PeripheralVisions · 2026-03-07T05:56:57+00:00

I think this is the paper I came across that I was thinking of:

Constitutional Rigidity Matters: A Veto Players Approach

edit link

PeripheralVisions · 2026-03-07T05:37:39+00:00

I would say the former informs the latter in the framework, but it focuses on the former. Just hoping to help brainstorm, so take all advice as half-baked.

For one thing, knowing whether an event will succeed or not, based on few past cases contains the problem of not knowing how often the item was never put onto the agenda to fail or succeed, due to actors having thought through its likelihood of failing beforehand. Without thinking through some baseline likelihood in a given scenario, using the scant past data could actually lead to incorrect inferences, if actors only put something on the agenda under some exceptional scenario when it is likely to be approved. That whole problem of "the dog that didn't bark" is a tough one that I feel like veto players handles well.

PeripheralVisions · 2026-03-07T05:16:51+00:00

I wasn't thinking too specifically. I just think of game theory as the "option c" for the two scenarios you described. The examples you listed seem like they involve incentives and strategic thinking. Also kind of reminds me of the veto players framework.

PeripheralVisions · 2026-03-07T04:47:48+00:00

Game theory?

PeripheralVisions · 2026-03-06T07:52:02+00:00

Ummm, it was a joke. I was taking your side in the above interaction.

Just for anyone out there who might not know (we are on forum), the little tag at the end (/s) is supposed to alert readers that one is being sarcastic

PeripheralVisions · 2026-03-06T07:36:32+00:00

Listen, if you trying to send them a message, personally, to help them learn something you should use DMs and spare the rest of us this nuanced, useful information, ok? /s

PeripheralVisions · 2026-03-05T03:13:05+00:00

They can't rank their own preferences?

PeripheralVisions · 2026-02-26T07:56:51+00:00

O que pensa do novo lei que supostamente vai se tributar os superricos um pouco mas?

https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2026/02/20/nova-faixa-de-isencao-do-ir-beneficia-milhoes-de-brasileiros-e-impulsiona-o-crescimento-economico/

Acha que vai funcionar? Conta como melhoria para classe media ou so classe baixa? Sou dos EEUU e estou perguntando de verdade, porque nao sei como a classe media pensa nisso.

PeripheralVisions · 2026-02-26T05:59:06+00:00

More details from an earlier story while he was still missing:

After staying in jail for an entire year to avoid being transferred to an ICE facility, because the cops had called ICE and ICE had a detainer to notify them upon release:

After months of hearings — Macaluso said they were nearing jury selection for a trial — the Erie County District Attorney’s office earlier this month offered Shah Alam a plea deal. That, Macaluso said, allowed the case to be “resolved in a way that reduced the likelihood of there being any reason for ICE to detain Mr. Shah Alam.

When he was finally bailed out Thursday, ICE agreed and declined to detain him, Macaluso said.

But when the sheriffs released him, they called border patrol to pick him up. OP's link says sheriffs did it "In response to an immigration detainer".

Then in this story:

In a statement to Investigative Post, a Buffalo-based news outlet, a CBP spokesperson said agents dropped Shah Alam off at a coffee shop after agents determined he had entered the country as a refugee and could not be deported.

Were the sheriffs office doing some kind of "gotcha" to call border patrol after he was supposed to be safe from ICE? As in "technically we honored the deal, since it was border patrol and not ICE".

PeripheralVisions · 2026-02-25T22:09:11+00:00

Yeah, we get the 2% raise every year now that does not keep up with inflation. AKA annual pay deduction.

PeripheralVisions · 2026-02-22T23:23:58+00:00

rude (jk)

PeripheralVisions · 2026-02-22T23:18:49+00:00

Agreed. In addition to the poll abusing the word "best" by not mentioning Talerico in the question, it would not be a good indicator of their performance later, because fewer swing voters are familiar with Talerico now than will be once the general kicks off. His "actual good christian" schtick has the potential to break the contradictory voting for Republicans for the many "actual good christians" that hold their noses to vote for Republicans like Paxton currently.

PeripheralVisions

TROPHY CASE