Info

The Election Nerds

The Election Nerds is a regular podcast on Australian Politics recorded in the studios of radio 2Ser in Sydney, Australia. Established in 2013, the show is hosted by Doctors Amanda Elliot and Stewart Jackson, the Nerds discuss all things Australian and international politics with an array of political scientists and other experts from Australian universities. #auspol. www.electionnerds.info
RSS Feed
The Election Nerds
2017
May
April
March
February
January


2016
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February


2015
December
October
September
August
June
May
March
February


2014
December
November
October
July
May
April


2013
December
September
August


All Episodes
Archives
Now displaying: February, 2017
Feb 19, 2017

In which the nerds talk about the prospect of Senator Cory Bernardi's, new conservative splinter party, examine crime, justice and the media in Australia, and look at research research examining the strategic decision making of Hamas in Palestine.

Hosts:

  • Dr Stewart Jackson, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney
  • Dr Amanda Elliott, Department of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Sydney

Guests:

  • Dr Alyce McGovern, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, School of Social Sciences, University of New South Wales
  • Dr. Martin Kear, Lecturer, Department of Government and International Relations

With post-show chatter!

Feb 12, 2017

A full length interview with Shaun Ratcliff (University of Sydney), recorded at the 2016 Australian Political Studies Association conference at UNSW Australia.

The subject of the interview was his paper, titled "Same-sex Marriage debate in Australia: Public opinion and policy congruence", written with DrsAndrea Carson (University of Melbourne) and Yannick Dufresne (Universite Laval)

The abstract for the paper is:

Democratic theory is predicated on the representative role of parties. In particular, representative democracies require that a certain degree of congruence exists between public opinion and the policies pursued by legislators. This paper seeks to identify the degree of this congruence on a particular issue: same sex marriage. This policy area is particularly useful for studying the link between public opinion and legislator policy activity as it is one of the few matters of public concern for which reliable data is available for both voters’ preferences in every Australian electorate and the position taken by most legislators in the Australian Federal Parliament. We study the relationship between public opinion on same-sex marriage and legislator’s position on this issue, and the individual and environmental factors that condition this relationship, using the unique Vote Compass data, collected during the 2013 federal election campaign, information from the 2011 Census, and advances in public opinion estimation. This methodology is used to create estimates of support for same-sex marriage in all 150 electoral divisions contested in this election. We then estimate the probability a parliamentarian would support same-sex marriage legislation in 2012, 2015 and the likelihood they would change their position from no to yes between these years. This study’s findings provide the first Australian test of the relationship between public opinion and legislators’ policy positions.

Feb 5, 2017

A full length interview with Dr Kcasey McLoughlin (University of Newcastle), recorded at the 2016 Australian Political Studies Association conference at UNSW Australia.

The subject of the interview was his paper, titled "Offensive intrusions and protected spaces: The personal, the public and the political" with Jim Jose (University of Newcastle).

The abstract for the paper is:

In 2013 the High Court ruled on whether the application of s.471.12 of the Criminal Code 1995 to prosecute Man Haron Monis (and his partner, Ms Amirah Droudis) for sending offensive material through the postal services contravened their right to free speech. All members of the High Court agreed the material was offensive but in an historic first the Court split on gender lines—the three women judges upheld the constitutional validity of the Criminal Code, whereas the three men judges found for Monis and Droudis. The divergent opinions adopted by the men and women judges in Monis are revealing about contemporary judicial understandings of the public and private spheres, and perhaps the political nature of the personal. We argue that these judicial opinions signal a seismic shift in how at least half the court thought about what properly belonged in which sphere. When these judgments are interpreted in the context of the political discourses which permeated the decision, both within and beyond the High Court, these judicial understandings of the contours of freedom of communication and notions of ‘harm’, ‘home’, ‘private’ and ‘public’ mean that offensive intrusions are protected, the private space of one’s home is not. Further, we argue that the judgments in Monis reveal a propensity to embed linguistic violence within judicial language and in effect give licence to antisocial, violent behaviour. In consequence, the judgments endorse a return to masculinist understandings of political behaviour and democratic practice.

1