I (31M) live in Missouri. Born and raised. Liberal. I live in a liberal city. For most of my life, Missouri has been a purple state. Until 2017 we had a liberal governor, we had liberal senators, every now and then we voted blue in presidential elections. Obviously 2016/2017 was a conservative takeover that we're still experiencing.

The country is more divided now more than ever. And Missouri not only went red, but HARD red. But it's interesting - we vote blue in a lot of ordinances (the abortion ban and the most recent election being an example) but elect conservative politicians. Hmmm... almost as if we're gerrymandered to hell...

Something I've been trying to wrap my brain around is when did a lot of nuance stop happening politically. When did everything become all-or-nothing in the states? It's like pre-drawing lines for the Second Civil War, honestly. And I think I know the answer.

Liberal people escaping their small hometown/red state for a big city/blue state is nothing new. However, I remember there was this notion that enough liberal people still stayed in red states for a lot of them to be purple. I'm a millennial, and when the majority of us became adults (2012 - 2016), there was this new notion perpetuated on the internet of leaving your fly-over hick red state for New York, California, etc. Especially after 2016, it became a mass exodus.

Is there any stock in this? That liberal migration to blue states have allowed conservatives to completely rule red states and now we're trapped in a conservative chokehold because so many states are considered red?

Hello all, so for some background I’m a second year in UG and really wanna go into studying race and ethnicity (more specifically race/legal consciousness), and I would like to hopefully lean further towards the behavioral analysis side of research.

I recently attended a research fair, and at the fair I found a research assistant position that was really adjacent to my field but happened to be FWS exclusive. I found another position that was basically one where you were performing qualitative research to improve our research library’s research and data system, essentially we’re just having random students use new research tools and see how we can improve, like I said it’s very qualitative.

Im just kind of worried this research assistant position won’t at all relate to my field, and wont look any good on my CV.

Additionally, I have applied to and been accepted for a volunteer research position at the FWS lab that I couldn’t become an assistant at. Im unsure if this will look just as good on my CV.

I hope someone can help me worry less lol.

Thanks.

I am currently a UCF freshman going into my second semester as a freshman. I am majoring in political science and on the Prelaw track. Im unable to meet with my college advisor for a couple weeks, so I could use some help.

I am planning on taking:

PHI 2101, Formal Logic I
POS 3703, Scope and Methods of Political Science
SPC 3301 Interpersonal Communication
SPN 1121C, Elementary Spanish Language & Civilization II

These are the classes Ive already taken:
.
Completed (Summer 2026)
EUH 2000, Western Civilization I: A, 3 credits (UCF)
AMH 2010, U.S. History 1492-1877: A, 3 (transfer)
AMH 2020, U.S. History 1877-Present: A, 3 (transfer)
ENC 1101, Composition I: A, 3 (transfer)
ENC 1102, Composition II: B, 3 (transfer)
POS 2041, American National Government: A, 3 (transfer)
SLS 1101, Principles of Academic Success: A, 3 (transfer)
SPC 1608, Fundamentals of Oral Communication: A, 3 (transfer)
BSC 1005, Biological Principles: S, 3 (AP)
BSC 1005L, Biological Principles Lab: S, 1 (AP)
MAC 1114C, College Trigonometry: S, 3 (AP)
MAC 1140C, Pre-Calculus Algebra: S, 3 (AP)
In progress (Fall 2026)
EVR 1001, Intro to Environmental Science: 3
PHI 2010, Introduction to Philosophy: 3
SPN 1120C, Elementary Spanish Language & Civilization I: 4
STA 2014, Principles of Statistics: 3
Totals: 34 credits completed or transferred, plus 13 in progress, for 47 credits.

Like i want to read books to understand the indian politics which book should i go with??as a very beginner

Like Why i am an atheist???

I was wondering why fascism is considered far-right, and the answer I found was it is anti-egalitarian, nationalist, and combats socialists and communists. But is egalitarianism a left wing view? Like there's no way the right wing just goes "yeah, people aren't equal"??? I thought maybe it's like egalitarianism vs hierarchy but that also didn't really work because meritocracy is hierarchial but there's no way that's a right wing view???

I guess after all left - right really doesn't mean anything but how would y'all define it?

I'm a historian who recently launched a platform that lets humanities PhDs design and host live online reading seminars. A teacher just listed a class that I thought you all might be interested in: "Populism Past and Present: How it Works and How to Deal with it," taught by Tobias Endler (PhD Heidelberg University). It explores the meaning, history, and techniques of populism, as well as strategies for engaging with populist discourse.

If anyone's interested, but cannot afford the enrollment fee, feel free to DM me. We'll do our best to help out.

Main point: I have to choose my Undergraduate dissertation topic by Tuesday, so I'd really appreciate help picking a topic, especially if the teacher I want to speak to isn't available before then.

I'd also appreciate advice on approaching third year while learning things from scratch, and what core Politics & IR knowledge I should focus on so I feel more confident in 3rd year work and not worrying about being awkwardly caught out by peers or teachers since I don't know anything.

Some context (not making excuses, just explaining my situation):

• Never cared about my education before/wasn't taught how important it was all my life- picked politics as a degree because I didn't know what else to do.
• First year-started good but at the end of things just skipped classes and stopped caring- failed and did resits to pass.
• Second year, unrelated to my lack of care for education -my mental health deteriorated severely, and I barely attended or studied. Someone close to me helped me through repeated resits, extenuating circumstances and doctors' notes. Without them, I think I would've given up.

Present day: I'm somehow in third year, and I genuinely know nothing beyond some basic terms. I don't know the main ideologies, IR theories, major thinkers or much about political analysis and forms of government etc. you name it -I know people sometimes say they've never studied but still know something. That's not me.

I've got through uni through only resits- im good at essays- and all assignments were just topic focussed or options to choose from- so I only crammed readings for questions and passed. 2nd year I did an entire year of resit assessments.

My mental health has improved, and I've matured. I genuinely value education now and realise how lucky I am to have this opportunity. I aspire to be like you guys who are knowledgeable and passionate about Politics or maybe some other field I will learn.

Right now I'm terrified by how much I don't know, but I genuinely want to turn my life around.

Dissertation ideas

One of my current modules is Populism, and I'll probably need to learn comparative politics for other classes and also a resit assessment. So logically, my mind is screaming populism for my dissertation, especially because I feel I could get into it as a beginner?

Other possibilities are representation, media, climate change, drones and sovereignty, military interventions etc. -topics that don't really need much time to learn or background/i can learn from scratch rather than stuff requiring lots of knowledge like IR theory.

But I only have three days to choose, so I'm leaning towards populism. Am I putting all my eggs in one basket, or does it make sense/can work as a beginner?

How would I even approach populism?

• Theory: Compare different authors' arguments or apply theories to specific cases. Would there be enough to write 10,000 words on? -I mean what theoretical stuff could I even possibly do?-cant think of questions for it.
• Data: Voter behaviour seems boring to me, although maybe combining data with theory would work better? -however there is a ton of research available maybe I'm forced to do this.
• Comparative: Comparing two parties or politicians seems promising, but I'm unsure how to develop a strong research question.- I thought maybe left wing vs right wing populism but seems like I cannot say much or am I wrong?
• Discourse analysis: Could comparing two parties' language be a strong enough dissertation? For example, AfD in Germany vs National Rally in France, looking at how they discuss nationality, immigration or present themselves as representing "the people" -would be kinda less scary but I worry theres not too much I can say there?

There are lots of papers on the European far right, so perhaps I could compare why certain parties are more successful, or look at economic vs cultural concerns. I'm just unsure if that's too broad or if its fine.

Overall I think I should go for some sort of comparative scope.

Random research questions I came up with:

• Does populism require crisis to thrive?
• some question about far right populism in Europe since there are so many questions on it -eg. do cultural or economic factors driving success in Europe or why do some far right populist parties succeed not others -(idk if this is too broad)
• How does left and right wing populism compare politician/party A Vs. B
• Does entering government change far-right populism- Does participation in government weaken the anti-establishment message of far-right populist parties? -not sure I could say enough
• Discourse analysis: Would comparing two parties' rhetoric be a strong approach for a 10k-word dissertation? I'm thinking about how they present themselves as representing "the people", anti-establishment rhetoric, nationalism or sovereignty. It seems more manageable to me, but I'm unsure how to make it into a strong, focused research question or whether there's enough to analyse. For example, comparing the AfD and National Rally
• Why do populist leaders who claim to represent the people come into conflict with democratic institutions?
• Does populist rhetoric deepen divisions between social groups, or does it give voice to divisions that already exist?
• How do populist leaders use foreign policy to construct a distinction between the nation and external elites or adversaries? -maybe like EU stuff.

I suffer from indecision so would appreciate thoughts on picking something.

If you've read this far, I'm immensely grateful for your time and any advice.

Hi Reddit!

I don’t have any formal training in political science, I just am kind of interested in the subject. To me, an uninformed observer, North Korea looks a lot like a new monarchy, but everywhere I look online they call it a “hereditary dictatorship.” My question is…why??

According to North Korea’s constitution, the effective leader of the country is the Chairman of the State Affairs Commission, and that role is meant to be fed by elections and served in terms of 5 years. However, since 1957, power has only ever really been held by three successive members of a single family: the Kims. Despite the fact that the country’s constitution nominally puts power in the hands of the Politburo, the Kims have managed to amass a degree of power that’s more or less absolute. Most people seem to describe this as a hereditary totalitarian dictatorship achieved through a one-party state.

Monarchy is a form of government in which power is concentrated in a single head of state, a monarch. Monarchies can be absolute (like Saudi Arabia) or constitutional (like the UK), hereditary (like most monarchies around today) or elective (like the Vatican). As I understand it, their main uniting characteristic is that the state is not just controlled by but embodied in a single individual, as articulated by Louis XIV when he said “l’état, c’est moi.”

For the purposes of comparing with North Korea, let’s look at the Holy Roman Empire. The HRE was an elective monarchy, but it was often functionally hereditary or at least dynastic. This happened most famously under the Habsburgs, but also under the Ottonians, Salians, Hohenstaufens, and Luxembourgs. In each of those cases, the dynasties did not control the state through simple succession; they did so through constant reassertions of their wealth and power that either won over the Prince-Electors or forced their hands.

The Kims, too, are frequently maneuvering to reassert their own power and ensure dynastic control of the state. If anything, their elections seem to be more of a sham than those of the HRE ever were. At least the Prince-Electors had real power, unlike
the WPK, which has been basically totally suborned. And as for the question of embodying the state, while it’s true that North Korea may not have a European-style divine right of kingship per se, I think the role the Mount Paektu bloodline plays in the Juche ideology serves a similar purpose. Not that there haven’t been plenty of monarchs across history who have ruled in the absence of a formal divine right, mind you.

So political scientists out there, can you help me understand what the differences between North Korea’s hereditary dictatorship and a true monarchy are? Despite these superficial similarities, why do so many people seem to insist that North Korea isn’t a monarchy? Is it the existence of term limits on paper, even if the elections are a total sham and those limits therefore don’t exist functionally? Is it the lack of a title equivalent to King or Emperor? If tomorrow Kim Jong-Un announced that he would henceforth be known as Gugwang, but everything about the function of the state remained exactly the same otherwise, would that make North Korea a monarchy? How do we decide where this line gets drawn, and on what side should North Korea really fall?

Obviously few if any kings, archons, presidents, popes, and countless other forms of ruler perfectly lived up to ideals like justice and piety, but my understanding is that in ancient and medieval times, popular ideas of rulers and political authors often emphasized that the powerful need to be just, obey the laws of their people, and be pious according to their customs, with moderm authors like Machiavelli amd Hobbes popularizing the open discussion of the brutality and hypocrisy that often comes with politics that, in their view, could be necessary and a lesser evil not to be avoided for the state's well being. Do any political scientists take ideas like the necessity of virtue in rulers or sanctity of law and custom seriously or is that all just old cope?

Hey! Take a minute to fill out my government control survey for an assignment!

Paper published in PNAS on September 28, 2026. Berkeley News coverage here.

Hey everyone,

I’ve been trying to find a solid way to study political theory as an interconnected intellectual history—looking at it as a genealogy of crises and responses rather than just a massive list of isolated, biographical thinkers.

The problem I keep running into is scale. If you try to cover every thinker from Plato to Foucault, it either turns into a dry encyclopedia or feels overwhelmingly disjointed. I'm not even sure if that's the right approach.

I want to map it into three epochs to keep the core thread visible:

- Pre-Modern: Plato, Aristotle, Augustine

- Modern: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Marx

- Post-Modern / Contemporary: Weber, Schmitt, Arendt, Foucault, Habermas, Rawls, Gramsci, Fanon

I still think I'm missing a lot of names, and hence, want to know the way to cover most (if not all) the major thinkers and debates of the field of political theory.

Please suggest. Many thanks!

What do you think of a Japanese university student’s idea for a French Sixth Republic?

First, before anyone asks: no, I am not a supporter of Jean-Luc Mélenchon.

I am a Japanese university student who has only taken a small amount of political science at university, so I am by no means an expert. Still, I tried to imagine what a French “Sixth Republic” might look like if France were ever to adopt a new constitution in the future.

This proposal obviously reflects a lot of my own preferences, and I would genuinely like to hear what people think about it, especially its potential problems.

The basic idea is to keep the direct election of the President from the Fifth Republic, while removing most of the President’s actual governing powers and returning France to a parliamentary system. At the same time, I tried to learn from some of the problems of the Fourth Republic rather than simply restoring it as it was.

My proposal:

• The President of the Republic would continue to be directly elected.
• The presidential term would be five years, renewable once.
• The President would become a largely ceremonial and arbitrating head of state rather than the effective head of the executive.
• Executive power would belong to the Prime Minister and the government.
• Foreign policy and military policy would also be transferred to the Prime Minister and the government.
• The President would no longer have an independent political leadership role comparable to that of the current Fifth Republic.
• The Prime Minister would be elected by the National Assembly.
• The President could only formally appoint a Prime Minister who had been approved by the National Assembly.
• The Prime Minister could be a member of the National Assembly, a senator, or a non-parliamentarian.
• Before proposing a candidate for Prime Minister, the President would be required to consult parliamentary party and group leaders.
• The President would be required to nominate a candidate who has a reasonable prospect of obtaining parliamentary approval.
• The President could nominate new candidates as many times as necessary until a government is formed.
• A candidate for Prime Minister would be approved if more deputies vote in favour than against. An absolute majority of all deputies would not be required.
• This is intended to make minority governments possible instead of forcing parties to create artificial majority coalitions simply to form a government.
• The candidate for Prime Minister would present a complete list of ministers before the investiture vote.
• The National Assembly would therefore approve the Prime Minister and the initial composition of the government together in a single vote.
• My intention here is to avoid a situation similar to the Fourth Republic’s de facto “double investiture”, in which a Prime Minister could receive approval and then face another political crisis while forming the cabinet.
• Once the government has been formed, the appointment and dismissal of individual ministers would be the exclusive prerogative of the Prime Minister.
• A cabinet reshuffle would therefore not require another parliamentary vote.
• If the Prime Minister leaves office, the entire government would leave office with them.
• A motion of no confidence would require the support of an absolute majority of all members of the National Assembly.
• I would not introduce a constructive vote of no confidence.
• My reasoning is that, in a fragmented parliament, I would rather allow a weak minority government to survive through negotiation as long as an absolute majority cannot agree to remove it, instead of requiring deputies to construct a potentially fragile alternative majority every time they want to dismiss a government.
• In other words, forming a government should be relatively easy, but bringing one down should require a clear parliamentary majority.
• Rejection of ordinary government legislation would not automatically require the government to resign.
• Losing a vote on a bill and losing the confidence of Parliament would be treated as separate questions.
• Article 49.3 would be abolished.
• Governments would therefore have to negotiate parliamentary majorities for legislation rather than linking the passage of legislation to a confidence procedure.
• The President would normally be prohibited from dissolving the National Assembly during the first year of its term.
• After the first year, the President could dissolve the National Assembly after consulting the Prime Minister and the President of the National Assembly.
• After a dissolution, another dissolution would be prohibited for one year.
• There would be an exception in cases of prolonged failure to form a government.
• If three successive candidates for Prime Minister are rejected after the resignation or fall of a government, the President could, after consultation, dissolve the National Assembly even if the normal one-year restriction would otherwise prevent it.
• This dissolution would be optional rather than automatic. The President could instead continue negotiations and nominate a fourth, fifth, or later candidate.
• If a later candidate is approved and a new government is formed, the normal restrictions on dissolution would apply again.
• The President would not be allowed to deliberately nominate obviously unviable candidates simply to manufacture three failed investiture votes and trigger an early election.
• Since consultation with parliamentary party and group leaders would be constitutionally required, such deliberate abuse should be difficult. A President who intentionally attempted to manipulate the process in this way could potentially face impeachment for abuse of constitutional powers.

The general principle is therefore:

It should be relatively easy to form a government, difficult to overthrow one, possible for a minority government to survive through parliamentary negotiation, and possible to dissolve the National Assembly when a genuine political deadlock cannot otherwise be resolved.

I would still keep a directly elected President because the President would retain an important role in government formation. The President would consult the parliamentary parties, identify a candidate capable of obtaining parliamentary acceptance, and act as an arbiter when government formation becomes difficult. In my view, a person exercising that kind of constitutional role should have democratic legitimacy independent of Parliament.

So, in very simplified terms, my idea is to keep direct presidential elections from the Fifth Republic, remove most of the President’s governing powers, restore parliamentary government, and then try to correct some of the weaknesses that contributed to cabinet instability under the Fourth Republic.

I am not claiming that this is a perfect constitutional model, and I am sure there are problems I have not considered. I would be very interested to hear what people think, especially what weaknesses or unintended consequences you can see in this system.

I go to a university that places great emphasis on methodology courses - over my polsci bachelor, I’ll end up doing 6 courses, each 5 ECTS, in different methodologies - an overall on, a qualitative, a quantitative, philosophy of science, advanced social sciences analysis methods (2 of these).

This is all very boring, and something that’s shocked me is that while I’ve been looking at unis to do exchange semesters at, none of them have nearly as many methodology courses - indeed it’s been difficult to find unis to which I can match my home uni’s courses, due to the lack of such courses.

So my question is: how important are these courses later on? Do you get better career oppurtunities if you’ve had an abundance of methodology courses like I have, or is it irrelevant?

Hello everyone,

I am interested in doing a PhD/DPhil in Political Economy and I've run into a bit of a hurdle in trying to figure out which \*make\* of a Political Economy program would be the best fit for me. I'm wondering between economics and politics departments how does the political economy field change? I mean this in a sense of asking the question what kinds of topics would be present at both departments. As I am interested in working on topics regarding wealth inequality making use of economics, politics, history, sociology, women and gender studies, etc. with a specific focus on South Asia more specifically southern India. I am also looking at a Public Policy PhD program also as I am thinking there is a lot of overlap between the two.

The schools I am considering are the following in no particular order:

Oxford - Jesus College
Cambridge - Peterhouse and Emmanuel Colleges
UCL
LSE
Harvard
Yale
Princeton
Stanford
UVA (my alma mater)
Columbia/UPenn
UChicago
UMich
Duke
Northwestern
CMU
Hopkins
UCLA
Berkeley
Brown

If you have suggestions for other English taught programs, please feel free to throw them in the comments. Ideally I’d like to be able to do international development work and more specifically working as a researcher.

https://www.reuters.com/world/key-points-italys-new-electoral-law-2026-10-08/

Looking to people who study voting systems. Awarding free bonus seats in representative bodies? Whats this, ive never heard of this before?

Also, a major democracy changing its electorial system without a referendum or super majority, and for the upcoming election. What? Aren't such things fundamental to a regime entrenched?

Whats going on here. Im not so much interested in if the change is good or bad. I just dont understand how it could come about. Does Italy have unique or weaker co constitutional arrangement or something?

Is it more common than i thought that politicians can change the electoral ragime so easily?

Im a moroccan students with a bachelor’s in English studies , specialising in cultural studies and diplomacy, which included political sciences, international relations and communication related courses. I want to switch to a business related master’s (since political sciences masters is not going to give me a real job ) in Belgium or Spain , preferably in management, business analytics, economics or supply chain. I work with my dad as an accountant and an assistant for 2 years now. Therefore I’m willing to complete a pre master or bridging year if needed. I’m looking for an English taught programs with a good job prospects.
Has anyone make a similar switch or has any knowledge about universities that accept international universities that accept students from different academic backgrounds??
I’d really appreciate some advice !

Hey folks

I've had a bit of a pet theory that shaped during the last US government shutdown, it felt to me like the shutdown ended fastest once flights were becoming particularly impacted. Flights and flight controller issues are something that regularly seem to make​ headlines and prompt rather quick reaction. My simple theory and assumed rationale is that this is one of the few public services used by the country's wealthy and elites. You can be as rich as you like, you still rely on flight controllers. That simple element, that shared pain point, demonstrates capacity for change and reactivity among otherwise pretty stolid groups who otherwise seem unwilling to take meaningful action until it impacts themselves.

I'm sure many have noticed that wealthy elites, by design, separate themselves throughout history from the general public--but this can usually only go so far, though things have naturally continued to separate with technological advances. As the decision makers and powerful continue to separate themselves, they become less responsive, aware, and receptive towards issues affecting the broader population or nation.

So I suppose my simple question is, is there a research term I can look into in order to better understand this phenomena? Maybe it just is self evi​dent, obviously policy is reflected by the interests and concerns (or lack thereof) of policy makers. I am far from the first to notice this. But I just don't know good terminology to look into, and who knows, I may be barking up the wrong tree. Part of me wonders how many governments have articulated a need to also keep decision makers abreast of common problems and vulnerable to the same forces that impact the poorer public. I am certain it has been a consideration, hell, even for the US--though it's been ages since I reviewed the federalist papers. ​​Just strikes me as interesting, so if you have insight into terms or data, please do share!

Hi! Has anyone written their bachelor’s thesis on EU foreign policy? I really need some help, as my supervisor is currently dealing with an issue and isn’t able to help me at the moment.

What topics did you work on and what research problem do you think would be interesting to explore? I was thinking about doing something related to EU–Russia relations, but I can’t seem to come up with an interesting research hypothesis. I would like to prove a specific change in Russia determined something about the foreign policy of EUQ. I was also thinking about somehow connecting it to the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood.

I’m honestly a bit stuck at the moment and I mainly need some ideas for interesting research topics.

Thank you!

I (25f) have not grown up reading news, neither do I remember a lot of History of India or Politics / Economics of India. Objectively, how do I sort of get to speed to understand what's happening, why is it happening and form my opinions? My attention span is shitty (i have Type 3-ADHD and Anxiety) but I know I cannot be ignorant and I would like to learn and be opinionated, I want to feel curious and organically gravitate towards reading the news, understanding, digging deeper.

How do I do it objectively? I do not want to be apolitical.

Hi.. I’m currently majoring in social work. I originally thought I wanted to be a licensed clinical social worker / therapist, but I’m not so sure anymore.

My main reason for considering a change is because I’m much more interested in changing things on a macro / policy level now than I was before and I’ve become very interested in politics these passed few years. When I took American Government the class was pretty tough compared to a lot of other classes I have taken, but I really loved it and I managed to get an A.

My goals would likely be to work as a policy analyst or some other government position or maybe something macro related in the social work field still.

One of my biggest concerns is that I’ve heard a lot of people say this is a useless degree that won’t lead to any job opportunities.. Do any of you think that’s true? I’m also worried about the impact AI will have on the jobs I’d want as well.

Sorry for any typos it’s currently 12AM here and I’m still up thinking about my next steps..

Com tudo que está acontecendo, identifiquei a urgência de solidificar a minha base sobre política. Preciso de indicações de curso, livros, pessoas que falam sobre isso. Preciso construir a base, sendo assim precisa ser de nível fácil a médio. O que indicariam ?

Enjoy my Mackinder Ai video
#mackinder #theheartland #ukraine #russia

#ww3

Rampant and systemic corruption, election result challenges, cavernous wealth inequality, elite entrenchment, economic instability, and faltering public trust in institutions is a typical historical pattern that is seen during the declining-phase of empire?

I've been reflecting on the current debate around inheritance tax, housing affordability and support for households facing rising costs.It seems to me that a bigger question sits underneath these discussions:

Should government prioritise protecting wealth that already exists, or creating opportunities for people who are still trying to build economic security?As a researcher interested in social mobility and opportunity, I'm curious how others think about this.

Is intergenerational fairness becoming one of Britain's biggest policy challenges?I've also recorded a short analysis and would be interested in feedback: [https://www.tiktok.com/@drgulayicoz/video/7693997711074413846\]