Doctoral Dissertation Research: Judicial elections and the three properties of legitimacy

博士论文研究：司法选举与合法性的三个属性

• 批准号: 1223199
• 负责人: Jeffrey Segal
• 金额: $ 3.11万
• 依托单位: SUNY at Stony Brook
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2012
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2012-09-01 至 2013-08-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1223199&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Doctoral; Dissertation; Research; Judicial; elections

This proposal uses an experimental design embedded in a nationally representative survey to test the impact of the four main varieties of judicial selection method (JSM) - appointment system, retention election, non-partisan election and partisan elections - on the legitimacy of state supreme courts. The experiment determines the impact of JSM by manipulating the salience of each institutional arrangement in a person's thoughts. Legitimacy varies on three properties called magnitude, persuasiveness and stability, and JSM impacts each. Magnitude is the amount of legitimacy an individual attributes to an institution. The persuasiveness of legitimacy is legitimacy's power to induce the mass public to accept displeasing decisions. The stability of legitimacy is the ability of an institution's legitimacy to withstand the negative pressure of displeasing decisions without a reduction in legitimacy. The legitimizing power of elections is predicted to increase the magnitude of legitimacy, but elections are predicted to reduce the persuasiveness and stability of legitimacy. The predictions are developed using a synthesis of Positivity Theory, framing theory, and the fundamental differences between legitimacy derived from elections and that derived from principled decision-making.An essential question in any political system is how to select public officials. While normative arguments are important in answering this, empirical reality should not be ignored. The question of legitimacy is especially important for courts that cannot rely on the purse or sword to enforce their decisions. This proposal provides new evidence about how the various JSMs impact judicial legitimacy, and for the first time uses an experimental design to answer this question. Using an experiment allows stronger claims of causation than extant research based on cross-sectional correlations. Additionally, the proposed experimental design and analysis examines all three properties of legitimacy while existing research concentrates solely on determining what causes changes in the magnitude of legitimacy.

该提案采用了一个实验设计，嵌入在一个全国代表性的调查，以测试的四个主要品种的司法选择方法（JSM）-任命制度，保留选举，无党派选举和党派选举-对州最高法院的合法性的影响。该实验通过操纵每个制度安排在一个人的思想中的显着性来确定JSM的影响。 合法性在数量、说服力和稳定性三个属性上存在差异，而JSM对每一个属性都有影响。规模是个人赋予一个机构的合法性的数量。合法性的说服力是合法性诱导大众接受宽松决策的力量。合法性的稳定性是指一个机构的合法性在不降低合法性的情况下，能够承受放松决策的负面压力。选举的合法性力量被预测会增加合法性的幅度，但选举被预测会降低合法性的说服力和稳定性。这些预测是综合运用了积极性理论、框架理论以及选举合法性和原则性决策合法性之间的根本差异而得出的。任何政治制度中的一个基本问题是如何选择公职人员。虽然规范性论点在回答这个问题时很重要，但不应忽视经验现实。对于不能依靠金钱或武力来执行判决的法院来说，合法性问题尤为重要。这一提议为不同的JSM如何影响司法合法性提供了新的证据，并首次使用实验设计来回答这个问题。使用实验比基于横截面相关性的现有研究更能证明因果关系。此外，拟议的实验设计和分析检查所有三个属性的合法性，而现有的研究只集中在确定是什么原因导致的合法性的大小变化。