Klaudia Wegschaider
Postdoc at UVienna and Yale ISPS || DPhil in Politics at Oxford DPIR || migration & suffrage & parties & mixed methods || klaudiawegschaider.com
- New issue of QMMR out! Also in there: A preview of the papers developed as part of last year's cohort of the Emerging Methodologists Workshop. ➡️ That includes my piece on episode analysis in historical political science. The long-form version is still in progress. Feedback welcome! 🙏
- The new issue of QMMR, our last as editors, is out! It’s been a privilege to work with Juan Masullo over the past four years. We leave a publication with a growing number of submissions, a more diverse pool of contributors, & that peer-reviews most pieces www.qmmrpublication.com/_files/ugd/7...
- NEW Publication featuring a great lineup of citizenship scholars!! :) “The Archipelago Capitalism of Citizenship-By-Investment”, Comparative Political Studies, lnkd.in/dQPG4Q7J @maartenpvink.bsky.social @globalcit.bsky.social @eui-ggp.bsky.social
- Congratulations on the publication! Looks great.
- Excited to share that I’ve been awarded a PI-Grant from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) for my project "What Citizens Think They Should and Can Do in Democracies”. The project comes with 1 PhD (co-supervised w/ a proper academic adult) and 2 RA positions + funding for interviews and surveys. 1/2
- Congratulations!
- 🚨Publication Alert! My first first-author publication with @msaeltzer.bsky.social and @pluggedchris.bsky.social is out in @polbehavior.bsky.social, which began as my bachelor's thesis. We study how party polarization shapes affective polarization—with a particularly important role of the AfD. (1/7)🧵
- Congratulations! 🙌
- Great opportunity for EU citizens to pursue doctoral studies at Oxford. And speaking from experience: Giovanni is a fantastic supervisor!
- PhD opportunity at the University of Oxford. The Morelli scholarship funds a doctoral student to work with me on on democratic backsliding, strategies of democratic defense and regeneration, or the rise of illiberalism. Deadline Jan 9. More information at users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0073/
- Our paper just got accepted in the @thejop.bsky.social 🎉 and is now on the journal website: www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/... For me personally, it's a milestone: my first paper accepted after a peer review!
- Congratulations!!!
- [Not loaded yet]
- Congratulations!
- [Not loaded yet]
- Congratulations! ✨
- Migrant Electoral Rights Dataset (1960-2020) 📊 Link to dataset: hdl.handle.net/1814/93661 📕 Link to codebook: cadmus.eui.eu/server/api/c... 💼 Link to 400 page documentation: cadmus.eui.eu/server/api/c...
- Findings? 1️⃣ Preprint on voting/candidacy rights discrepancy: doi.org/10.33774/aps... 2️⃣ Preprint offering a dyadic perspective on migrant electoral rights: doi.org/10.33774/aps... 3️⃣ Article on special representation: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/... 4️⃣ Data descriptor forthcoming.
- We --including my coauthors @sumpierrez.bsky.social and Rainer Bauböck-- very much hope that this will be a useful resource for anyone interested in non-resident citizen and non-citizen resident electoral rights.
- Finished the virtual dataset launch! 📊 Grateful to see that there was so much interest. Thanks to everyone who joined. 🙏 Special thanks to @luicypedroza.bsky.social and Antonio Spinelli for a very thoughtful discussion. 🙏 And big thanks my co-authors @sumpierrez.bsky.social & Rainer Bauböck. 🙏
- 🚨 New Working Paper with R.Bauböck + @sumpierrez.bsky.social We introduce the concept of incongruent suffrage. This describes when there are voting rights but no candidacy rights for a group. Or vice versa. The paper includes descriptive data & exploratory case studies. doi.org/10.33774/aps...
- [Not loaded yet]
- Yes, good example. For executive positions, we frequently found that migrant candidacy rights were withheld while voting rights were extended. Holds for noncitizens and nonresidents.
- We close with a research agenda on suffrage incongruency: 1) documenting: how common are divergences in voting + candidacy rights across demographic groups? 2) explaining: why do they arise? 3) what is the impact of incongruency on existing and new voters?
- If you want to learn more about our Migrant Electoral Rights dataset, please register for our launch event next week: migcitsky bsky.app/profile/glob...
- 🚨 Webinar Alert 🚨 Join us for the online launch of the new Migrant Electoral Rights (MER) Dataset, the most comprehensive global dataset on migrant suffrage to date 🌐 📅 Oct 15 | 17:00 CEST 📍 Online 🔗 Register www.eui.eu/events?id=58...
- Why did non-resident citizens of the UK have candidacy rights before voting rights were added? This suffrage incongruency was an unintended consequence of an electoral law written before the idea of non-resident candidates was meaningful. It is an example of policy drift.
- Why did non-citizen residents of the canton of Geneva gain voting but not candidacy rights? The existing electorate was more supportive of immigrant enfranchisement excluding voting rights. Public support is crucial in direct democracies, but it is also relevant in representative settings.
- For non-citizen residents, we find that slightly more than half of countries with local suffrage provide both voting + candidacy rights. The remaining cases only offer voting rights but not candidacy rights. There are no cases of candidacy-only incongruencies.
- With the help of two case studies, based on in-depth archival fieldwork, we explore why incongruency arises. 🇬🇧 UK: only candidacy rights for non-residents until mid 1980s 🇨🇭Switzerland, canton Geneva: only voting rights for non-citizens
- So how common is a discrepancy between candidacy and voting rights? And why does it occur? 🧐 With MER data, we address this for non-citizen residents and non-resident citizens (often migrants). But, historically, there are many examples of incongruency beyond migrants. bsky.app/profile/glob...
- Explore the new GLOBALCIT Migrant Electoral Rights (MER) Dataset ❗🌐 🌍 165 countries (1960–2020) 📊 488 indicators 🗳️ voting & candidacy rights of non-citizen residents + non-resident citizens 🏛️ Differentiates election type (legislative, executive, referendum) & level 📥: tinyurl.com/yv37nj7m
- For non-resident citizens, we find that almost two thirds of countries that provide suffrage have extended both voting + candidacy rights at the national level. But there are still many cases--across regimes types--where non-resident citizens can only vote OR only run for office.
- Suffrage incongruency represents an empirical and normative puzzle. 🧩 Empirically, existing theories of suffrage expansion struggle to explain incongruency. 🧩 Normatively, incongruency sits unwell with the idea of suffrage equality.
- 🤔 Curious about our new open access dataset on migrant electoral rights? Join us for the webinar to get an overview. 📊
- 🚨 Webinar Alert 🚨 Join us for the online launch of the new Migrant Electoral Rights (MER) Dataset, the most comprehensive global dataset on migrant suffrage to date 🌐 📅 Oct 15 | 17:00 CEST 📍 Online 🔗 Register www.eui.eu/events?id=58...
- Wow! It’s finally out there. Together with @sumpierrez.bsky.social and R. Bauböck, I am happy to share this resource. Stay tuned for news on 1. Our launch event 2. Our detailed dataset descriptor (conditional accept this morning!) 3. Another preprint paper showing more new results.
- Explore the new GLOBALCIT Migrant Electoral Rights (MER) Dataset ❗🌐 🌍 165 countries (1960–2020) 📊 488 indicators 🗳️ voting & candidacy rights of non-citizen residents + non-resident citizens 🏛️ Differentiates election type (legislative, executive, referendum) & level 📥: tinyurl.com/yv37nj7m
- A big thank you to all the colleagues, country experts, staff at electoral commissions, and other kind people that guided us or responded to our detailed questions. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
- [Not loaded yet]
- Thank you!
- [Not loaded yet]
- Thanks for reminding me. Need to go back there! 😍
- ➡️📍📑 New Working Paper with @sumpierrez.bsky.social and Rainer Bauböck Work on migrant voting rights often has a state-centric perspective. We propose *migrant franchise constellations* as a migrant-centric approach. A 🧵 with our argument and new data! 🗳️ preprints.apsanet.org/engage/apsa/...
-
View full threadBack to our short paper: this is a preprint and won't be the last version. Comments welcome. Our thanks to everyone who helped us on the way here! 🙏 If you are attending APSA, you can learn more about this on Thursday at 12 pm. If not, check out the preprint. 😀 Thanks for reading this far!
- PS: If you find this interesting, check out recent work by Vink, van der Baaren, and Reichel on dyadic data on dual citizenship acceptance.
- Can we estimate how many migrants are completely disenfranchised? 🤔 There is no reliable data on how many people meeting our definition fall into each dyad. 😕 The closest approximation is migrant stock data (many caveats!). Our estimate is that at least 74m remained fully disenfranchised in 2020.
- Normative positions on migrant voting rights differ. My own take defies the for/against dichotomy. But one thing is clear to me: I find it concerning if people are completely excluded from this core democratic right. Especially in contexts where citizenship acquisition is highly restrictive.
- How does this play out empirically? 🧐 How many country combinations (dyads) fall into each category? 📊 To answer this, we computed roughly 1.3m dyad-years, covering 172 countries and the years 1960 to 2020. [ ⏰ Stay tuned for the upcoming electoral rights data release!]
- 1️⃣ In the 1960s, more than 90% of our country combinations left migrants completely disenfranchised. 2️⃣ By 2020, the *no franchise* constellation still made up roughly 30% of the dyads in our sample. 3️⃣ The currently most common constellation offers national voting rights in the citizenship country.
- An example: 🇿🇦 🇬🇧 A citizen of South Africa who is resident in the UK can vote in both countries. 🇺🇾 🇬🇧 A citizen of Uruguay who is resident in the UK cannot vote in either country.
- Our typology is based on combinations of voting rights in the country of citizenship (CC) + residence (CR). It considers local + national rights in the CR and national rights in the CC. The most inclusive constellation contains all the above voting rights. The least inclusive type has none.
- Migrant* voting rights result from specific combinations of countries: 1️⃣ does the country of citizenship offer voting rights from abroad? 2️⃣ does the country of residence have non-citizen voting rights? (defined as non-citizen residents who are also non-resident citizens; full disclaimer in paper)
- [Not loaded yet]
- [Not loaded yet]
- Thanks… not using this, so it’s probably still my laptop 😅
- Looking for recommendations! 📚📖 🙏🏻 Starting in October, I will be teaching a seminar on democratic resilience. Suggestions for readings, incl. your own work, are welcome! I will make the syllabus publicly available.
- Yes, this problem has also appeared recently for me. I thought it was just my laptop being weird.
- [Not loaded yet]
- Thank you!
- This is a great and very smart paper—like basically all of Klaudia's work. If you don't know it yet, make sure to check it out.
- In this article, I study the effect of one type of multi-option format—having simultaneous, binary proposals on the same topic. This format entails two (or more) questions that are separately answered with yes or no. Link: doi.org/10.1177/0010...
- Thank you, Vicente!
- 📝🧵 New Publication ✨ My paper on multi-option referendums is now available open access in @cpsjournal.bsky.social If you are interested in referendum design and/or immigrant enfranchisement and/or multi-method work, read on...
- [Not loaded yet]
- Thank you!
- [Not loaded yet]
- Thank you! 🙏🏻
- [Not loaded yet]
- Thank you 🙂🙏🏻
- [Not loaded yet]
- Thank you, Tarik!
- [Not loaded yet]
- thank you!
- [Not loaded yet]
- Thanks Leo! Now I finally managed to write my paper thread :)
- [Not loaded yet]
- Many people have kindly provided feedback on this paper, so here’s my block of thanks.
