Voter turnout is one of the most widely examined phenomena of interest in Political Science; however, researchers have paid less attention to the specific traits that may determine a candidate’s popularity among the electorate. The United States has a winner-takes-all political system, which indicates that in any given election, the stakes are too high. Consequently, every aspect of the candidate’s life becomes a relevant factor. However, if we could identify which traits are important to the electorate, then we could focus on the important aspects of the political process- the candidate’s stance on the issues. In this study, I focus on the effect that knowledge of a political candidate’s participation has on the candidate’s likability rating. Moreover, I study whether basketball or golf cause the greatest impact.

This project focuses on the perception of immigrants as criminals, but more importantly, how this negative perception of immigrants can influence the population’s support for strict punitive policies. The question I seek to answer: will common negative perceptions of immigrants affect public support for more stringent punitive policies? The literature on what makes people punitive mostly focuses on the role of race and hostile feelings that lead to punitive feelings towards an immigrant. In this project, minorities and their attitudes in contrast to past studies that focus on White Americans will be central to the analysis. Analysis of both the 2012 National Election Survey and 2001 Los Angeles Social Survey data is used to explain how the relationship between economic threat and negative perceptions of immigrants lead to respondents becoming more punitive. Although respondents who feel economic threat are more punitive, there is a difference in significance between Whites and Blacks.

The question of loyalty in autocratic regimes has drawn a sustained scholarly interest, especially with the resilience of many of these regimes over most of world history and over the past few decades in particular. Autocratic leaders need to secure the support of their militaries to survive in office and to minimize the risk of a coup. Among the commonly employed mechanisms in this regard is the extension of extra-budgetary financial rewards, including ‘Military-Owned Businesses (MOBs).’ Nevertheless, under the increasingly significant threat of an uprising from below, military defection remains the key for the success of the revolution. The question then becomes: under what conditions would a military defect from an autocratic ruling alliance? Although many answers have been proposed to solve this puzzle, an increasing number of cases are proving them insufficient. Alternatively, this project presents one novel answer to this question, which is: militaries are “defection-proofed” in the face of mass uprisings when they develop financial dependency on the regime. By contrast, when the management of the extra-budgetary resource for the military, i.e. MOBs, becomes the exclusive domain of the military and independent from the regime, the military is expected to defect. This proposed hypothesis represents a contribution to the democratization literature, both its installation, i.e. underlining a ‘pro-democracy’ capacity of the military in removing the dictator, as well as its consolidation, i.e. handling the legacy of the autocratic regime after the transition. This hypothesis is tested comparatively against the cases of mass protests in China (1989), Indonesia (1998), Thailand (2006), Iran (2009), and Egypt (2011). This comparative analysis represents another contribution of this study, bringing together a diverse array of cases unexpected to have much in common. Analysis draws on a mix of both primary resources collected from the field along with secondary materials. The comparisons are made considering the type of civil-military relations in each case, the size and type of financial rewards controlled by the military, and their effect, if any, on its decision to repress or defect based on the interaction between the military and the dictator.

The purpose of this thesis is to examine the outcomes of the 2011 Arab Spring from the perspective of regime types within the Middle East and North Africa. The intense year of protest that spread throughout the Arab world had disparate effects between countries which this paper investigates. Utilizing an institutional approach, I separate the Arab world into monarchic and republican systems relying on data provided by the Arab Barometer II and III. Theoretically, I suggest, and find evidence to support, that monarchies were more resistant to the Arab protests because desires for change were not as strong within these countries because of the historical arrangements within these countries.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--UCLA, 2009. / Vita. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 682-715).

Thèse numérisée par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal

Thèse numérisée par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal.

博士(政治学) / Doctor of Political Science / 同志社大学 / Doshisha University

博士(政治学) / Doctor of Political Science / 同志社大学 / Doshisha University