Richard Nadeau

Satisfaction with democracy is a vastly studied research topic. In this Element, the authors aim to make sense of this context by showing that elections (electoral processes and outcomes) influence citizens' satisfaction with democracy in different ways according to the quality of a democratic regime. To do so, they leverage the datasets from the Comparative Study on Electoral Systems (CSES) and uphold the belief that social scientists must take advantage of the increased availability of rich comparative datasets. The Element concludes that elections do not only have different impacts on citizens' satisfaction with democracy based on the quality of the democratic regime that they live in, but that the nature of the meaning attributed to electoral processes and outcomes varies between emergent and established democracies.

Satisfaction with democracy is a vastly studied research topic. In this Element, the authors aim to make sense of this context by showing that elections (electoral processes and outcomes) influence citizens' satisfaction with democracy in different ways according to the quality of a democratic regime. To do so, they leverage the datasets from the Comparative Study on Electoral Systems (CSES) and uphold the belief that social scientists must take advantage of the increased availability of rich comparative datasets. The Element concludes that elections do not only have different impacts on citizens' satisfaction with democracy based on the quality of the democratic regime that they live in, but that the nature of the meaning attributed to electoral processes and outcomes varies between emergent and established democracies.

For many international experts, politicians, and commentators, Denmark stands out as an ideal society with a well-functioning welfare state, low levels of corruption, and a high degree of social and political stability. Like other countries, however, Denmark faces challenges brought on by overall societal changes—particularly the challenges of maintaining a prosperous economy and from the growing number of immigrants with different ethnic and religious backgrounds that have left their mark on Danish society over the past 50 years. But how have Danish voters reacted to these challenges? The authors of The Danish Voter investigate a series of interesting questions concerning voters’ reactions to these macrosocial challenges and how their reactions affect the foundations for the ideal. Indeed, due to an electoral system open to new influences, the Danish case is an important test case for theories about political development of contemporary Western societies.

The majority of policymakers, academics, and members of the general public expected British citizens to vote to remain in the European Union in the 2016 referendum. This perception was based on the well-established idea that voters don't like change or uncertainty. So why did the British public vote to take such a major economic risk? Framing Risky Choices addresses this question by placing the Brexit vote in the bigger picture of EU and Scottish independence referendums. Drawing from extensive interviews and survey data, it asserts that the framing effect – mobilizing voters by encouraging them to think along particular lines – matters, but not every argument is equally effective. Simple, evocative, and emotionally compelling frames that offer negativity are especially effective in changing people's minds. In the Brexit case, the Leave side neutralized the economic risks of Brexit and proposed other risks relating to remaining in the EU, such as losing control of immigration policy and a lack of funding for the National Health Service. These concrete, impassioned arguments struck an immediate and familiar chord with voters. Most intriguingly, the Remain side was silent on these issues, without an emotional case to present. Framing Risky Choices presents a multi-method, comparative, state-of-the-art analysis of how the Brexit campaign contributed to the outcome. Uncovering the core mechanism behind post-truth politics, it shows that the strength of an argument is not its empirical validity but its public appeal.

The majority of policymakers, academics, and members of the general public expected British citizens to vote to remain in the European Union in the 2016 referendum. This perception was based on the well-established idea that voters don't like change or uncertainty. So why did the British public vote to take such a major economic risk? Framing Risky Choices addresses this question by placing the Brexit vote in the bigger picture of EU and Scottish independence referendums. Drawing from extensive interviews and survey data, it asserts that the framing effect – mobilizing voters by encouraging them to think along particular lines – matters, but not every argument is equally effective. Simple, evocative, and emotionally compelling frames that offer negativity are especially effective in changing people's minds. In the Brexit case, the Leave side neutralized the economic risks of Brexit and proposed other risks relating to remaining in the EU, such as losing control of immigration policy and a lack of funding for the National Health Service. These concrete, impassioned arguments struck an immediate and familiar chord with voters. Most intriguingly, the Remain side was silent on these issues, without an emotional case to present. Framing Risky Choices presents a multi-method, comparative, state-of-the-art analysis of how the Brexit campaign contributed to the outcome. Uncovering the core mechanism behind post-truth politics, it shows that the strength of an argument is not its empirical validity but its public appeal.

In Quebec and Scotland, questions of constitutional change, national identity, and national grievance play an important role in the electoral calculations of political parties and voters. Taking a strong stance on the national question can have strategic benefits both for parties pushing for greater autonomy and for those endorsing the status quo. In this in-depth look at issue voting, authors Éric Bélanger, Richard Nadeau, Ailsa Henderson, and Eve Hepburn examine how the national question affects political parties and voter behaviour in both substate nations. Through party manifestos, interviews with legislators, and opinion survey data, this book demonstrates that calls for constitutional change influence political debate, competition, voter choice, and the outcome of elections not only within Quebec and Scotland but also across Canada and the United Kingdom. Minority nationalist parties, the authors show, can gain support by claiming ownership of issues with widespread public agreement, such as self-determination and protecting the identity and interests of the nation. A comprehensive analysis of recent electoral politics, The National Question and Electoral Politics in Quebec and Scotland greatly enhances our understanding of the electoral impact of substate nationalism.

In Quebec and Scotland, questions of constitutional change, national identity, and national grievance play an important role in the electoral calculations of political parties and voters. Taking a strong stance on the national question can have strategic benefits both for parties pushing for greater autonomy and for those endorsing the status quo. In this in-depth look at issue voting, authors Éric Bélanger, Richard Nadeau, Ailsa Henderson, and Eve Hepburn examine how the national question affects political parties and voter behaviour in both substate nations. Through party manifestos, interviews with legislators, and opinion survey data, this book demonstrates that calls for constitutional change influence political debate, competition, voter choice, and the outcome of elections not only within Quebec and Scotland but also across Canada and the United Kingdom. Minority nationalist parties, the authors show, can gain support by claiming ownership of issues with widespread public agreement, such as self-determination and protecting the identity and interests of the nation. A comprehensive analysis of recent electoral politics, The National Question and Electoral Politics in Quebec and Scotland greatly enhances our understanding of the electoral impact of substate nationalism.

The Michigan model, named after the institution where it was first articulated, has been used to explain voting behavior in North American and Western European democracies. In Latin American Elections, experts on Latin America join with experts on electoral studies to evaluate the model’s applicability in this region. Analyzing data from the AmericasBarometer, a scientific public opinion survey carried out in 18 Latin American nations from 2008 to 2012, the authors find that, like democratic voters elsewhere, Latin Americans respond to long-term forces, such as social class, political party ties, and political ideology while also paying attention to short-term issues, such as the economy, crime, corruption. Of course, Latin Americans differ from other Americans, and among themselves. Voters who have experienced left-wing populism may favor government curbs on freedom of expression, for example, while voters enduring high levels of economic deprivation or instability tend to vote against the party in power. The authors thus conclude that, to a surprising extent, the Michigan model offers a powerful explanatory model for voting behavior in Latin America.

Heated debate surrounds the topic of health care in both the US and in Canada. In each country, these debates are based in some measure on perceptions about health care in their neighboring country. The perceptions held by Canadians about the US health care system, or those held by Americans about Canada, end up having significant impact on health policy makers in both countries. Health Care Policy and Opinion in the United States and Canada examines these perceptions and their effects using an extensive cross-national survey made up of two public opinion polls of over 3,500 respondents from the US and Canada. The book first develops a rigorous and detailed explanation of the factors that contribute to levels of satisfaction among Americans and Canadians with respect to their health care systems. It then attempts to study the perceptions of Canadians vis-à-vis the US health care system as well as the perception of Americans toward Canada’s health care system. The authors examine how these perceptions impact health policy makers, and show how the survey results indicate remarkable similarities in the opinions expressed by Americans and Canadians toward the problems in the health care system, heralding perhaps a measure of convergence in the future.The authors present how perceptions on health care indicate elements of convergence or divergence between the views of Canadians and Americans, and discuss how these citizen opinions should inform health care policy change in both countries in the near future. This book should generate interest in scholars of health care, public opinion, and comparative studies of social policies and public opinion.

Heated debate surrounds the topic of health care in both the US and in Canada. In each country, these debates are based in some measure on perceptions about health care in their neighboring country. The perceptions held by Canadians about the US health care system, or those held by Americans about Canada, end up having significant impact on health policy makers in both countries. Health Care Policy and Opinion in the United States and Canada examines these perceptions and their effects using an extensive cross-national survey made up of two public opinion polls of over 3,500 respondents from the US and Canada. The book first develops a rigorous and detailed explanation of the factors that contribute to levels of satisfaction among Americans and Canadians with respect to their health care systems. It then attempts to study the perceptions of Canadians vis-à-vis the US health care system as well as the perception of Americans toward Canada’s health care system. The authors examine how these perceptions impact health policy makers, and show how the survey results indicate remarkable similarities in the opinions expressed by Americans and Canadians toward the problems in the health care system, heralding perhaps a measure of convergence in the future.The authors present how perceptions on health care indicate elements of convergence or divergence between the views of Canadians and Americans, and discuss how these citizen opinions should inform health care policy change in both countries in the near future. This book should generate interest in scholars of health care, public opinion, and comparative studies of social policies and public opinion.

Citizens are central to any meaningful definition of democracy. What does it say about the health of Canadian democracy when fewer citizens than ever are exercising their right to vote and party membership rolls are shrinking? Are increasingly well-educated citizens turning away from traditional electoral politics in favour of other forms of democratic engagement or are they simply withdrawing from political participation altogether?The first comprehensive assessment of citizen engagement in Canada, this volume raises challenging questions about the interests and capabilities of Canadians as democratic citizens, as well as the performance of our democratic institutions. It is essential reading for politicians and policy-makers, students and scholars of Canadian politics, and all those who care about the quality of Canadian democracy.

Citizens are central to any meaningful definition of democracy. What does it say about the health of Canadian democracy when fewer citizens than ever are exercising their right to vote and party membership rolls are shrinking? Are increasingly well-educated citizens turning away from traditional electoral politics in favour of other forms of democratic engagement or are they simply withdrawing from political participation altogether?The first comprehensive assessment of citizen engagement in Canada, this volume raises challenging questions about the interests and capabilities of Canadians as democratic citizens, as well as the performance of our democratic institutions. It is essential reading for politicians and policy-makers, students and scholars of Canadian politics, and all those who care about the quality of Canadian democracy.

Anatomy of a Liberal Victory: Making Sense of the Vote in the 2000 Canadian Election provides a compressive account of the factors that led Canadians to vote the way they did in the Fall 2000 Canadian election, which resulted in a third consecutive Liberal majority government. The book explains the overall impact that these factors had on how well or poorly each of the parties did in the election. The authors address in particular the following questions: Why was turnout so low? What were Canadians’ perceptions of the economy and how much impact did these perceptions have on vote choice? What were voters' opinions on the major issues of the day and did these opinions affect their decision on election day? What did voters think of the leaders and how much weight did these evaluations have on their choice? The study is based on mass surveys, involving more than 3,000 respondents, conducted both during the campaign and after the election. It also draws on a detailed content analysis of the parties’ messages and nightly news broadcasts throughout the campaign and its aftermath. Academics please note that this is a title classified as having a restricted allocation of complimentary copies; complimentary copies remain readily available to adopters and to academics very likely to adopt this title in the coming academic year. When adoption possibilities are less strong and/or further in the future, academics are requested to purchase the title at an academic discount, with the provison that University of Toronto Press will happily refund the purchase price (with or without a receipt) if the book is indeed adopted.