Email can deliver mobilization messages at considerably lower cost than direct mail. While voters’ email addresses are readily available, experimental work from 2007 to 2012 suggests that email mobilization is ineffective in most contexts. Here, we use public data to reexamine the effectiveness of email mobilization in the 2016 Florida general election. Unsolicited emails sent from a university professor and designed to increase turnout had the opposite effect: emails slightly demobilizing voters. While the overall decrease in turnout amounted to less than 1 percent of the margin of victory in the presidential race in the state, the demobilizing effect was particularly pronounced among minority voters. Compared to voters from the same group who were assigned to control, black voters assigned to receive emails were 2.2 percentage points less likely to turn out, and Latino voters were 1.0 percentage point less likely to turn out. These findings encourage both campaigns and researchers to think critically about the use and study of massive impersonal mobilization methods.

How does the design of military institutions affect who bears the costs of war? We answer this question by studying the transformative shift from segregated to integrated US military units during the Korean War. Combining new micro-level data on combat fatalities with archival data on the deployment and racial composition of military battalions, we show that Black and white soldiers died at similar rates under segregation. Qualitative and quantitative evidence provides one potential explanation for this counterintuitive null finding: acute battlefield concerns necessitated deploying military units wherever soldiers were needed, regardless of their race. We next argue that the mid-war racial integration of units, which tied the fates of soldiers more closely together, should not alter the relative fatality rates. The evidence is consistent with this expectation. Finally, while aggregate fatality rates were equal across races, segregation enabled short-term casualty discrepancies. Under segregation there were high casualty periods for white units followed by high casualty periods for Black units. Integration eliminated this variability. This research note highlights how enshrining segregationist policies within militaries creates permissive conditions for either commanders' choices, or the dictates and variability of conflict, to shape who bears war's costs.

Collective action, particularly by low-resource groups, presents an opportunity for re-election-minded legislators to learn about (and subsequently represent) their constituents’ salient interests. In fact, legislators are more likely to support the preferences of protesters than non-protesters. Legislators are also more likely to support the preferences of racial and ethnic minority, low-income and grassroots protesting groups than they are to represent better-resourced protesters. This argument emerges from a formal theory and is empirically tested using legislative roll-call vote data from the 102nd through the 104th US Congresses and data on civil rights, minority issues and civil liberties issue area protests reported in the New York Times. This counterintuitive result enhances understanding of inequalities in representation. It demonstrates that under certain conditions, political representation favors disadvantaged populations.

Can different experiences with discrimination produce divergent political behaviors? Does it make a difference whether individuals are discriminated against by their peers or community members in the course of everyday life as opposed to political actors or institutions tasked with upholding democratic norms of equality and fairness? Crossing disciplinary boundaries, this study proposes a new theoretical perspective regarding the relationship between discrimination and political behavior. Specifically, it distinguishes between societal (interpersonal) and political (systematic) discrimination when examining the behaviors of racial and ethnic minorities in Great Britain. The results illustrate that although experiences of political discrimination may motivate individuals to take part in mainstream politics for substantive or expressive purposes, the same conclusion cannot necessarily be drawn for those who experience societal rejection. The principal aim of this study is to further highlight the complex and multidimensional nature of discrimination, and to encourage further analyses of how different types of discrimination may impact the civic and political behaviors of minority groups.

This paper explores the effect of norms—standards of conduct dictated by an identity—on white, American immigration attitudes. Results from a survey experiment show that when respondents evaluate immigrants who violate cultural norms, by speaking a non-English language and/or rooting for a foreign soccer team, respondents are less supportive of green cards for immigrants. Moreover, norm violations are consequential for tolerant, prejudiced, liberal, moderate, and conservative respondents. Valuing cultural norms is a shared and pervasive aspect of immigration attitudes, and targeting norms for inquiry brings into view the societal structure of opposition to immigration. However, norm violations affect green card support among liberals only in evaluations of Latino immigrants, and among conservatives only in evaluations of European immigrants.