Christine Bangum

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]

📊 FINDINGS:

1) For non-donors, we see a clear drop in turnout the larger municipality they move to ✅
2) The turnout of pro-social individuals (donors) is far less affected by the size of their municipality 📉 [6/7]

We use data on charitable donations🎁 to proxy pro-social motivations, and analyze what happens to individuals' turnout when they move between municipalities of different sizes 🚚 [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 🤯

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! 🥳

It's published in @jpube.bsky.social (w/ Benny Geys & Rune Sørensen) and tackles a classic question:

Why do people vote in large elections, when the probability of casting a pivotal vote is virtually zero? 🗳️

www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
[1/7]

Aprilsnarr, absurd eller tull? Nei. Vi trenger flere lotterier i norsk politikk. Kritikerne avslører mangel på forståelse for kunnskapsbasert politikk.

Kritikken mot å bruke tilfeldig utvalg for å teste skattegrep for unge avslører én ting: Manglende forståelse for kunnskapsbasert politikk. Vi trenger mer eksperimentering, ikke mindre. Samfunnet bør styres av evidens – 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:

📉 43% less electricity generation was from gas than in 2000. 📈 Wind + solar increased more than 100x
🚫 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...