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

这项提案使用嵌入全国代表性调查的实验设计，以测试四种主要的司法选举方法(JSM)-任命制度、保留选举、无党派选举和党派选举-对州最高法院合法性的影响。这项实验通过操纵每个制度安排在一个人思想中的突出程度来确定JSM的影响。合法性取决于三个属性，即规模、说服力和稳定性，而JSM对每一个属性都有影响。规模是指个人对一家机构的合法性程度。正当性的说服力是正当性引导大众接受令人不快的决定的力量。合法性的稳定性是指一个机构的合法性能够在不降低合法性的情况下承受令人不快的决定的负面压力的能力。选举的合法化力量预计会增加合法性的程度，但选举预计会降低合法性的说服力和稳定性。这些预测综合运用了积极理论、框架理论以及选举产生的合法性和原则性决策产生的合法性之间的根本区别。任何政治制度中的一个基本问题是如何选择公职人员。尽管规范论证在回答这一问题时很重要，但经验事实也不应被忽视。对于不能依靠金钱或剑来执行判决的法院来说，合法性问题尤其重要。这项提案提供了关于不同司法制度如何影响司法合法性的新证据，并首次使用试验性设计来回答这个问题。与现有的基于横截面相关性的研究相比，使用实验可以得到更强的因果关系主张。此外，拟议的实验设计和分析检查了合法性的所有三个属性，而现有的研究仅集中于确定是什么导致合法性的大小发生变化。

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.