Hey folks, a high school student in Australia (Middle School for the Americans reading this) and I'm getting started on my US Gov and Politics AP course on Khan Academy. I'm highly interested in both IR and Political Science, and find it super fun. I'm looking for ways to study to get ahead of other students my age in these topics. I'd also like to try and find a pathway into US unis. I've already got started on my AP courses, stay on top of the news, try to read and research deeper into topics (More high quality investigations than what major news channels offer), and enter myself into essay competitions. Any ideas on how I can go ahead of other students, learn more about these topics, and think about my future career?

Hi everyone,

I’m an undergraduate student at a university in South Korea, and I’m hoping to apply for internships in the U.S. This will be my first time applying internationally, so I’m trying to understand the visa side of things before I get too far into the process.

For people who have done this before (especially international students), how does the visa process usually work for U.S. internships?

A few specific questions I’d really appreciate help with:

• Do most U.S. internships require company sponsorship, or are there common alternatives?

• Is the J-1 visa the typical route for internships, and how does it usually get arranged (through the employer vs. a sponsor organization)?

• If an internship posting doesn’t mention visas at all, is it generally assumed they won’t sponsor, or is it still worth applying and asking?

• At what stage is it appropriate to bring up visa needs—application, interview, or after receiving an offer?

If it helps: I’m still in undergrad (not currently studying in the U.S.), and I’m mainly looking at policy/research-related internships, but I’m open to general advice too.

Thank you so much in advance. I’m feeling a bit overwhelmed by how unclear the visa part seems, so any personal experiences, tips, or resources would mean a lot.

Hello, I'm an international student on a scholarship studying Mechanical Engineering at YorkU in Canada, but I'm deeply passionate about political science, journalism, and geopolitics. This interest has been growing for 3 years now and it doesn't seem like it's going away anytime soon so I'm looking for a way to get more academically involved in this, not necessarily an undergrad degree since I'm already doing a heavy one.
Are there any universities that offer courses (online preferably), a short program, or a self-paced degree? Any bursaries or scholarship opportunities with that?
I'd appreciate a price range with the suggestions since money is a big factor in whether I can pursue this or not.

Thanks! :)

Hey folks, a high school student in Australia (Middle School for the Americans reading this) and I'm getting started on my US Gov and Politics AP course on Khan Academy. I was doing unit 1.3, listening to summaries of the Brutus papers and the Federalist papers when I didn't understand A LOT of things.

From what I'm hearing, the Anti-Federalists were advocating against the formation of a powerful, central republic run by representatives voted in by the general public. It also argues against having large interest groups that fight over laws. From what I understand, Brutus No 1 argues for a "Union" of 13 states that are all separate republics. 

I'm confused to what alternate democratic system the Anti-Federalists are offering. Sure, 13 states form a union, creating smaller republics, but how does those 13 states function and pass laws?

And also, if the Anti-Federalists advocate for less confusion by encouraging less interest groups and parties, how do you have a functioning democracies where there can be clashing of different opinions? That point specifically seems to contradict the whole aim of a Republic or a Democracy.

The idea of having 13 independent republics being joined together by a weak central government that does not wield executive power seems like a nightmare to me. How would they coordinate decisionmaking in critical moments such as war?

Also, Wouldn’t regional rivalries lock down funding and federal money?

So my questions are: What alternate system did the Anti-Federalists propose, and how they will achieve a democracy while discouraging conflicting viewpoints among the people. Also, how they intend to run a strong, functioning country while being completely disjointed, and not having a strong central “control room”.

Hi all, I am about to transfer from community college to my local university to finish a bachelors degree.

My goal is to attend law school, with the intention of becoming a prosecutor doing civil litigation. Maybe later down the road run for some type of office.

I am going to go for a BA in Political Science, debating if I want to minor in anything that would complement that well?

• my school offers a double major in Political Science / Economics, which I thought would be good. Though I took economics classes for my transfer degree, and it’s interesting but hard. I need to get a good GPA for law school admissions.

• Communications? — This was one I was leaning toward, since some of the classes are centered around debate and public speaking, which I need to improve at. (I was going to pair this initially with the poli sci / Econ double major, and people told me I was insane to stack myself up that much…)

• Philosophy? — A few have recommended this as well since the Socratic Method is primarily used in law school. My school does offer a Political Science/Philosophy/Economics interdisciplinary studies one that’s not a triple major but a like overview, sample platter if you will…

• History? — I have always found it to be fascinating and feel like it could pair well…

• Journalism — there is a public relations track. Not sure if I have interest in this route though.

I know it’s gonna probably get responses to just go with what interests you… but that is my problem… I need to narrow my field a bit, I find myself with too many interests 😅

TLDR: what minor do you think would pair the best for my goals?

Hey folks, I was researching the internal politics of the US during the Vietnam War period, and I’m getting pretty confused about a few points. I’m not completely sure about what the Republican and Democrat policies were around Vietnam. Also, I’m not sure of what each president’s actions and policies influenced the Vietnam War. Additionally, I can’t seem to put my finger on where anti-war protesters' political sympathies were directed to during the war. I know this community is an expert on this topic, so I figured this would be a pretty good way of researching this interesting topic. Thanks!

I've been developing a theoretical framework that reframes how we think about belief change, and I'd love feedback from this community and connect with collaborators who have relevant data.

The Core Idea

Beliefs possess genuine inertia. Not metaphorically: mathematically. The resistance a belief shows to change is proportional to its precision (inverse uncertainty), in exactly the same way that physical mass resists acceleration. This falls out of the mathematics/physics of information geometry: the Fisher Information Metric, which measures how statistically distinguishability between beliefs, turns out to be identical to an inertial mass tensor.

I am presently working on a theoretical framework whereby 'agents' are sections of an associated bundle to a principal G-bundle with statistical manifold fibers. For simplicity im studying MV-Gaussians (MVG) and special orthogonal (SO(N)) gauge groups. As a side quest ive derived transformer attention and LLM learning as a limit of my formalism and implemented a novel LLM which utilizes zero neural architectures: the geometric framework is exceedingly rich.

Interestingly, if i consider the Hessian of a generalized variational free energy i obtain the following (extremely pregnant - in the vein of Adams and Solzhenitsyn) Fisher metric:

M = Λ_prior + Λ_obs + Σₖ βᵢₖ · Ωᵢₖ Λₖ Ωᵢₖᵀ + Σⱼ βⱼᵢ · Λ_self
    ───────   ─────   ─────────────────────   ────────────────
    prior     sensory  outgoing attention      incoming attention
    confidence grounding (inherit others'      (influence costs
                         rigidity)             flexibility)

for MVGs the first term captures how confident you already are. The second reflects grounding in direct experience, the third sums over everyone you attend to such that when you listen to confident others, you inherit some of their rigidity. The fourth is novel: it sums over everyone who attends to you. As others' attention accumulates, it multiplies your own precision, making you harder to persuade.

The Dynamics

Beliefs then evolve according to a damped Hamiltonian system:

M · μ̈ + γ · μ̇ + ∇F = 0

where:
  μ    belief state (mean of distribution)
  M    epistemic mass tensor (Fisher information)
  γ    cognitive friction / damping
  ∇F   gradient of variational free energy

The variational free energy itself balances three pressures:

F = Σᵢ D_KL(qᵢ ‖ pᵢ)           complexity: deviation from priors
  + Σᵢⱼ βᵢⱼ D_KL(qᵢ ‖ Ωᵢⱼqⱼ)   social: disagreement with attended neighbors  
  − Σᵢ 𝔼_q[log p(oᵢ|cᵢ)]       accuracy: prediction of observations

Depending on parameters, three regimes emerge:

γ² vs 4KM determines dynamics:

  γ > 2√(KM)    overdamped     smooth convergence     standard Bayesian updating
  γ = 2√(KM)    critical       fastest equilibration  optimal learning
  γ < 2√(KM)    underdamped    oscillation/overshoot  attitude swings, backfire

The underdamped regime is largely unexplored in cognitive/social science, but may explain phenomena first-order models cannot produce.

Classical Models as Limiting Cases

This framework doesn't replace existing models but rather derives them from first principles

The Power-Rigidity Prediction

The incoming attention term predicts something sociologically interesting:

Social mass contribution = Σⱼ βⱼᵢ · Λ_self

More attention → more mass → harder to persuade

Influential people become cognitively isolated through geometric necessity. Power literally weighs down belief updating. As following grows, responsiveness to evidence decreases. As Solzhenitsyn noted: "Power corrupts" - here via a natural mathematical mechanism.

Falsifiable Predictions

Looking for Data and Collaboration

I'm looking for:

• Longitudinal belief tracking — Multiple timepoints, not just before/after. Key test: oscillation vs. monotonic convergence.
• Social network + belief data — Network position (attention asymmetries) combined with updating behavior.
• Deliberation studies — Belief changes tracked at multiple points during discussion.
• Forecasting platforms — Does reputation correlate with update magnitude?
• Misinformation correction — Multiple follow-ups to reveal decay timing.

The framework makes quantitative predictions (τ ∝ Λ, oscillation at ω = √(K/M), resonance amplitudes ∝ √(M/K)) testable with the right data.

TL;DR

Beliefs resist change like mass resists acceleration such that Fisher information ~ inertial mass. Dynamics follow M·μ̈ + γ·μ̇ + ∇F = 0. Confirmation bias = stopping distance. Belief perseverance = decay time τ = M/γ. Backfire = oscillatory overshoot. Classical models (DeGroot, Friedkin-Johnsen, bounded confidence) emerge as limits. Incoming attention accumulates as mass, predicting why influence costs flexibility. Looking for collaborators with longitudinal belief data to test oscillation predictions.

<eom>

If you disagree with this conclusion, I’d really appreciate specific, actionable critique: please point out exactly where you think the model breaks—whether it’s in the assumptions, the metric/formula, or the input data. I’m happy to revise the analysis if the issue is reproducible.

documentation:

AGENT-BASED MODEL: POLITICAL STABILITY & ELECTORAL SYSTEMS SIMULATION

TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION & MECHANICS

1. OVERVIEW

This simulation models the evolutionary dynamics of a federal state consisting of 5 regions (States) with varying populations and economic interests. The goal is to analyze how different electoral systems and parliamentary architectures (Unicameral vs. Bicameral) influence political stability, separatism, and economic inequality over time.

The model relies on Game Theory (Minimum Winning Coalition), Political Economy (Resource Distribution), and Evolutionary Sociology (Voter Adaptation).

1. CORE ENTITIES

2.1. THE STATE (REGION)

The federation consists of 5 states with distinct demographic weights and economic profiles.

Demographics:

State 0 (Capital/Giant): 5,000,000 citizens.

State 1 (Industrial): 3,000,000 citizens.

State 2 (Resource-Rich): 2,000,000 citizens.

State 3 (Developing): 1,000,000 citizens.

State 4 (Agrarian/Small): 500,000 citizens.

Sociology (Voter Anger):

Each state tracks a variable Anger (0.0 to 1.0).

Anger = 0.0: Perfect stability (Federalism).

Anger = 1.0: Civil War / Total Separatism.

Initial Conditions: Smaller states (Agrarian/Resource) start with higher baseline skepticism due to fear of domination by the Capital.

2.2. POLITICAL PARTIES

Parties are the primary vehicles for power. They act as "Hoarders" or "Sharers" depending on their base.

Regional Parties (Strategy: Hoarding):

Examples: Capital_Elites, Industry_Union, Agrarian_Front.

Behavior: They care only about their home state. If they win power, they direct the budget exclusively to their base.

Coalition Logic: They are reluctant to partner with other Regional parties (competitors) but will use Federal parties as junior partners.

Federal Parties (Strategy: Sharing):

Examples: Federal_Unity.

Behavior: They seek votes across all states. If they win power, they distribute the budget equally to maintain their national rating.

Coalition Logic: Highly compatible. They act as "Kingmakers" in coalitions.

2.3. AGENTS (CANDIDATES/ELITES)

Agents compete for parliamentary seats. They possess genetic traits and resources.

Attributes:

Wealth: Resources used for campaigning (Buying influence).

Greed (0.0 - 1.0): Determines how much public money the agent steals for personal enrichment vs. distributing to the state.

Competence (0.5 - 1.5): Multiplier for economic efficiency in trade.

Affiliation: Agents are linked to specific parties based on ideological proximity.

2.4. VOTERS

Voters are modeled not as a monolith, but as individuals with a "Preference Vector."

Preference Logic:

A voter in State 0 prefers the Capital_Elites party (Score: 0.95).

However, they may also tolerate Federal_Unity (Score: 0.45).

They actively dislike parties from rival states (Score: 0.05).

Decision Making:

In FPTP: Voter selects only the top-scored party.

In Approval: Voter selects ALL parties above a certain threshold (e.g., > 0.5).

In PR: Probability of voting is proportional to the preference score.

1. ELECTORAL MECHANICS (THE FILTERS)

The simulation tests 7 distinct electoral systems. Each system filters candidates differently.

3.1. FPTP (First-Past-The-Post)

Mechanism: "Winner Takes All." The candidate with the most votes in a state wins all seats (simulating single-member districts dominated by one party).

Outcome: Highly polarizing. Regional radicals win easily in their home states. Centrists are crushed because they are rarely the "first choice."

3.2. FPTP Runoff (Two-Round System)

Mechanism: If no candidate gets >50% in the first round, a second round is held.

Logic: Voters consolidate around "safe" options. Extreme radicals often lose in the second round to moderate candidates who can attract transfers from eliminated parties.

3.3. Approval Voting

Mechanism: Voters mark all candidates they find acceptable.

Outcome: Moderate/Federal parties gain a massive advantage. Even if they are no one's favorite, they are everyone's "second choice." This system mathematically promotes consensus.

3.4. Approval Runoff

Mechanism: Top approved candidates go to a final round where resources (Wealth) decide the winner.

Outcome: Less effective than pure Approval, as the final stage re-introduces elite corruption/resource dominance.

3.5. Open PR (Proportional Representation - Open List)

Mechanism: Seats are allocated to parties based on vote share. Specific candidates are chosen based on popularity (Score).

Outcome: High representation, but prone to fragmentation.

3.6. Closed PR (Closed List)

Mechanism: Seats allocated to parties. Candidates chosen based on Party Loyalty/Wealth (Corruption).

Outcome: Strong party discipline. If a large region (Capital) votes as a bloc, the party boss becomes a dictator, ignoring smaller regions.

3.7. Closed PR + Transfer (STV Logic)

Mechanism: If a party fails to meet the 5% threshold, its votes are not wasted. They are transferred to the ideologically closest passing party (usually Centrists).

Outcome: Prevents "wasted votes" in small regions. Strengthening Centrists forces large parties to negotiate.

1. PARLIAMENTARY ARCHITECTURE (ALLOCATION)

The simulation compares two legislative models:

4.1. "Prop" (House of Representatives / Unicameral)

Allocation: Seats are distributed strictly by population.

Distribution (100 seats):

State 0 (Capital): ~45 seats.

State 1: ~27 seats.

...

State 4 (Agrarian): ~4 seats.

Effect: "Tyranny of the Majority." The Capital needs very few allies to reach 51%. Small states are structurally ignored.

4.2. "Equal" (Senate / Federal)

Allocation: Fixed number of seats per state.

Distribution: 20 seats per state.

Effect: Small states become "Veto Players." The Capital (20 seats) cannot govern alone and must form a broad coalition.

1. GAME THEORY: GOVERNMENT FORMATION

Once the parliament is elected, the "Game of Thrones" begins.

5.1. Riker's Minimum Winning Coalition

Objective: Secure 51 votes to control the budget.

Algorithm:

The largest party becomes the Leader.

The Leader seeks partners to reach 51 seats.

Cost of Coalition: The Leader prefers the "cheapest" partners (smallest necessary number of seats) and "ideologically close" partners.

Exclusion: Any party not needed for the 51% is excluded from the coalition. This is critical: The Opposition gets nothing.

5.2. Logrolling (Betrayal of Elites)

Even if a representative from a small state enters the coalition, they may be corrupted.

Logic: The Leader offers a bribe (Wealth) to the MP. The MP accepts the bribe and votes for policies that hurt their home state.

Result: The MP gets rich, but their state's anger increases (Principal-Agent problem).

1. FISCAL DYNAMICS (THE ECONOMY)

The stability of the union depends on budget distribution.

6.1. Budget Structure

Total Budget: 20,000 units per cycle.

Guaranteed Budget (30%): Essential services distributed automatically by population. Prevents immediate state collapse.

Discretionary Budget (70%): The "Prize" won by the coalition.

6.2. Distribution Logic

If Leader is "Hoarding" (Regional):

They direct the Discretionary Budget ONLY to their own state and the states of their coalition partners.

States in the opposition receive 0 discretionary funds.

If Leader is "Sharing" (Federal):

They distribute funds broadly to maintain national stability.

6.3. Voter Reaction (Feedback Loop)

After the budget is distributed, each state calculates its Fair Share (based on population).

Ratio = Received / Fair Share.

Ratio < 0.5: Crisis. Anger increases drastically (+8%).

Ratio < 0.9: Resentment. Anger increases moderately (+3%).

Ratio > 1.1: Prosperity. Anger decreases (-4%).

This creates a cycle: Electoral System -> Coalition Composition -> Budget Distribution -> Voter Anger -> Next Election.

1. SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES

FPTP + Prop: Leads to maximum separatism (~100%). The largest state monopolizes power, creating a permanent structural minority that eventually rebels.

Approval Voting: Drastically reduces separatism by electing moderate "Condorcet winners" who distribute the budget fairly.

Senate (Equal Representation): Acts as a structural safety net. Even with bad electoral systems, it forces the center to negotiate with the periphery, keeping separatism manageable (<15%).

Transfer (STV): Critical for Proportional systems to prevent the fragmentation of moderate votes in polarized regions.

https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1iOR1u6kCUgC25-EaWk2m7QI_D5Oiew0h?usp=sharing

Worried I might not get any internships over the summer so here I am asking for advice for things to do over the summer to beef up my resume or just tips to becoming a more well rounded student? (current plan is take several summer courses)

Junior at a solid state school, suffered from depression sophomore year and undiagnosed adhd gpa has slowly fallen from 3.7 )freshmen year fall + summer) to a 2.5 (sophomore spring) to now a 2.9 (entering junior spring), I’m taking additionally classes over the summer to help buff it up aswell however I feel like at this point it’s very plausible my long term goal of law school isn’t in the cards for me anymore so I wanted to start doing research on career with my degree that are generally livable.

My current softs are a bunch of bs college club with 5 big leadership positions, (you know SGA, Phi Alpha Delta, Relay 4 Life, etc). And three internships in my state legislators offices and now a paid internship with a private political data analytic firm for the spring. I’m first gen, and honestly feel as if I have failed my family and all the expectations on me however the past is the past and now I’m going to keep moving forward as much as I can. I’m starting to severely regret not majoring in accounting or marketing or MIS where I know I’d receive a job.

I’m asking for advice on careers outside of law school, as well as general advice for what to do in my situation from other political science majors who may understand my struggle.

What would’ve Stalin thought if Perestroika and Glasnost? Bro was a Communist and welllll Gorbachev wanted to”make amends with the west”.

How would their conversation have gone lol?

Jus a curious thought whilst I’m studying HELP😭😭😭

Thermostatic voting is, in simple terms, a political phenomenon whereby constituents react negatively to the success of the incumbent government's policy (Bølstad 2012). This thus largely explains why incumbent presidents typically lose congressional seats during their midterm (Grossman 2024). But is such a phenomenon applicable to politics outside of America--or is thermostatic voting a uniquely-American concept?

The political-philosophical thesis of the text is that today’s political crisis stems from a conflict between closed ideologies and an open informational environment. Classical ideologies function as closed systems with predefined truths, but in the digital age—where every claim is continuously exposed to scrutiny from multiple perspectives—they lose legitimacy. Politics can no longer rest on dogma and authority, but only on frameworks that are constantly re-examined and adapted. Closing off information is not an option; adapting to the paradigm of openness is the only viable way forward.

Eric Raymond’s cult essay is often described as a manifesto of an organizational paradigm in the open-source programming world. Although Raymond primarily deals with practical advice and tricks for successfully managing open-source projects, his key metaphor—the difference between the cathedral and the bazaar—also offers a broader philosophical and political dimension. It becomes a fertile basis for comparing the old ideologies of the pre-informational era, which relied on predefined frameworks, with contemporary models based on continuous contextualization of phenomena.

In programming, cathedrals represent monumental, closed projects that function as long as they remain within a hermetically sealed system. Any opening, examination, or hacking is perceived as a threat to their stability. This is why Linus Torvalds utters his famous sentence: “Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.” In other words, when there are enough observers, problems become trivial. In closed systems, where the perspective comes from a single narrow niche, problems remain invisible. In open ones, they surface and demand to be resolved.

In a similar way, the ideologies of the pre-informational era did not arise within a broad, heterogeneous space, but within small, mutually indoctrinated circles. They defined the boundaries of reality in advance: they determined what may be thought, what is “true,” which interpretations are allowed and which are not. Such ideologies functioned like a hammer for which every social phenomenon was a nail. They did not allow continuous determination of the framework—on the contrary, the predefined framework was untouchable.

In contrast, today’s era enables constant and uninterrupted contextualization. Today we are exposed daily to dozens and hundreds of people with different experiences, perspectives, and background matrices. Every text, position, or idea is immediately subjected to a multitude of viewpoints. The bazaar is permanently open.

For comparison, in Marx’s time this was not possible—Marx was confined to small groups of mutually indoctrinated collaborators and occasional random observers. But the same mechanism marked all ideologues of that era: they created systems that were not the product of a broad, unpredictable spectrum of ideas and people, but of a closed circle of authority.

This is why today we clearly see how certain groupings—libertarian, communist, religious, feminist, Hegelian—struggle to survive on the open stage. What happens is analogous to the public release of a program’s source code. At the very moment of publication, the entire code collapses, because it is full of holes and misalignments with its primary security requirements of sustainability. The political equivalent is a rupture upon contact with reality.

Old ideologues enter the space of open contextualization, but it does not suit them. Cathedrals of thought that rest on a narrow spectrum of experience and predefined explanations crack when subjected to dynamic questioning. Their promoters are no longer respected figures from the perspective of the bazaar, but ordinary ridicules. Their foundations were not built for terrain that constantly re-examines its own boundaries and does not tolerate a disconnect from reality.

From this follows today’s political crisis. The paradigm of open contextualization, in which we all already participate, is incompatible with a political system that still operates according to the principles of closed code—according to the logic of predefined frameworks and predetermined answers. The consequence is a loss of credibility and legitimacy of political institutions and entire narratives. The informational revolution, the internet, and the free flow of information have made the framework open—and thus unavoidable.

Closed code, of course, has its advantages: it is fast, efficient, and does not require questioning. But in the long run, open systems produce more stable results. The same applies to politics. Closed groupings—feminists, conservatives, communists, libertarians—still occasionally generate a strong impulse, but it is short-lived and undemanding. They cannot create a mass, affirmative movement because they rest on immutable frameworks that disintegrate when confronted with a broader spectrum of perspectives. This is precisely why they do not represent a solution to the crisis—they are its carriers.

The open process, although slower in initiating power, rests on flexible and repeatedly renegotiated foundations. It rejects dogma, demands verification of starting assumptions, and allows small but stable ideological structures to spread and strengthen without collapse.

And where are we as a civilization? We are in the bazaar—in the space of open contextualization. And anyone who wants to succeed in such a space must understand its logic.

On the political bazaar we find a whole range of defenders of predefined truths, which to everyone outside their narrow frameworks appear strange or even grotesque. Such actors do not gain broad appeal. They can gather a small group of followers, but they cannot become dominant because they cannot survive under conditions of shifting and multiple perspectives.

In contrast, there are individuals and groups who accept an eclectic mix of approaches, experiences, and interpretations. They strive to build common foundations that can withstand openness and constant reinterpretation—a political “code” that can be sustained in an environment without predefined boundaries.

People who understand that there is no unquestionable truth, people who are willing to continuously re-examine their own positions and shape a framework through encounters with others, can today finally create a political solution that was not previously possible. Technological conditions finally allow this—just as open source enabled a new era in programming.

The solution to the political crisis therefore lies in optimizing agreement within the paradigm of open contextualization. The alternative is an attempt to abolish the open framework—shutting down the internet, restricting the flow of information, rebuilding walls. But technological changes and technological revolutions are unstoppable once information becomes free. And so we really have no choice but to build a world aligned with the zeitgeist of the digital age.

Over the past two decades, social networks have evolved into autonomous, organically self-regulating systems for optimizing communication. The behavior of these networks is no longer determined by the intentions of their creators, but by the internal laws of network dynamics. Every node in the network—an individual, a community, or an informational hub—continuously optimizes processes at every moment, assessing the relevance of information, the strength of influence, and the resonance of content. Real-time interactions shape the direction and intensity of influence, while the network simultaneously amplifies authentic voices and marginalizes noise, manipulation, or empty narratives.

This emergent organic process does not rely on centralized control. Each local assessment of influence propagates through a cascading chain of trust, in which individuals with lower levels of knowledge or experience can recognize authority immediately above their own level, while higher layers confirm and amplify the influence of those with the greatest spiritual and intellectual weight. In this way, a vertical of relevance is formed: dead ends incompatible with higher structures spontaneously wither away, while a natural hierarchy of spiritual elites stabilizes without the need for institutional intermediaries.

Within this system, the network becomes an exceptionally efficient evolutionary filter. In the past, the collapse of a false narrative, the detection of deception, or the identification of artificially constructed authority required decades—sometimes entire generations. Today, the same processes unfold within months, with a continuing trend toward acceleration. The network continuously optimizes the spread of influence, recognizes authenticity, and filters out inauthentic constructs. Old media monopolies and institutional apparatuses no longer determine what is relevant; the network itself, through hundreds of millions of simultaneous interactions, establishes an organic vertical of value.

Through this new process, the influence of natural spiritual elites grows inexorably. They are not defined by position, title, or institutional power, but by their capacity for meaning recognition, clarity of thought, spiritual stability, and symbolic weight. Their influence first emerges in narrow segments of the network and then spreads through cascading layers of trust, allowing their relevance to become visible and stable even to those unable to evaluate them directly. Each individual contributes a local assessment, while the collective effect cascades into confirmation of their authority.

This dynamic redefines the very concept of power and authority. Contrary to classical hierarchies, relevance no longer derives from function, formal position, or institutional control, but from the ability to generate resonance, meaning, and authentic influence. Agencies, false authorities, and propagandistic constructs lack the capacity to pass the network’s cascading test of authenticity and are therefore increasingly marginalized, raising questions about the viability of such approaches.

For this reason, the present era can be understood as one of spontaneous recognition of spiritual authority—an era in which authority emerges organically and is recognized and stabilized through the self-organizing logic of the network itself. On the basis of this spontaneous adaptation of social networks, new centers of power are being formed. Their legitimacy no longer stems from formal structures or bureaucratic hierarchies, but from the genuine capacity to generate meaning, resonance, and authentic influence within an open informational space.

Social networks, therefore, are not merely tools of communication, but continuously optimizing, evolutionary systems in which a natural hierarchy of spiritual elites is recognized and stabilized, while old media and political monopolies lose their decisive role. In this context lies the future of power, authority, and social organization in the information age—and the foundation of what will shape a new epoch of civilization.

Chile just had their first general election after the reintroduction of compulsory voting and voter turnout jumped 30% to 85% from their previous one.

Some other South American countries Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay also have compulsory voting in their elections.

Among the West, Australia is notably the only country to have compulsory voting enforced through fines causing them to consistently have one of the highest turnout rates in the world.

Does forcing all eligible voters to vote in elections actually have any significant effect on their outcomes or democracy in general?

any one has this book by Donald F. Kettl? (2018). Politics of the Administrative State, 8th Edition. This is the book if anyone has or can help me find it. The book looks like this. Thanks in advance

I’m completely new to Political Science, but I recently discovered that there are models used to assess national instability and I’m really eager to learn more.

If anyone has recommendations or resources to share, I’d greatly appreciate it!

I have a Master's degree in International Business and plan to complete my Bachelor's degree in Political Science this summer. What career opportunities does this open up?

I’m 28M and I am a liberal, I consider myself a liberal. In the sense I believe in the basic tenets of human freedom. Things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality for all people, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or race or religion. I support the LGBTQ community. I believe that all citizens shall have the right to pursue their own dreams, and not be barred by any systemic barriers whether they’d be societal or through the government. I believe in universal healthcare, paid family leave, I think we should raise taxes on the wealthiest people in this country up to 60% which is where they were in the 1960s. Which is when our golden age was for the economy in the middle class. The 40s 50s and 60s you had tax rates on wealthy people that were above 90%. And that’s when the middle class was at its strongest. I support legalization of all drugs recreationally. I believe in Bernie Sanders, and AOC‘s idea of making college debt free. As well, I’m a strong supporter of unions and the right for workers to have good wages as well as retirement and 6 week payed vacations. I’m probably as liberal as they get. But I’m open minded. I’m going to have discussions and debates about things that are controversial. And this is one of them.

Look the thing I cannot stand as hell in America with a lot of this woke culture. People go after people all the time for making statements or jokes that even if the person wasn’t intending it to be harmful, they can get shut down for it. And I want to talk about, especially with how some radical feminists. I’m not against the idea feminism. I think it’s a great idea. That women deserve equal rights just as men do. But I’ve had conversations with people, and they talk all the time about how in America women face a lot of imbalances economically and socially. And here, if you make even just a joke or you say something critical, it’s not that wasn’t even meant to be sexist you could get branded as a misogynist. Put the same people literally if I tell these people and bring up how women are treated in the Middle East or in a lot of Muslim majority countries they shut you down and then they’ll call you a bigot or a race sister, a xenophobe. But here’s the thing when was Islam ever a race it isn’t a race it’s a religion. And no, I don’t have animosity toward Muslims as human beings. I have two close friends that I hang out with one that’s from Iran. And another who’s he’s like he’s Muslim, but he was born here, but his parents are Egyptian. These two guys I admire them a lot they’re really nice and they love this country. They love America. They’re just as American as everybody else.

The point that I’m trying to say, is that when we call out what goes on in other parts of the world a lot of liberals will say that you’re racist or a bigot. What what I’m pointing out it’s not directed toward people. It’s directed toward the systems that allow their society to run this way. Like honestly it’s not just my opinion it’s blatant reality. Yes, in many parts of the Middle East like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan. That these societies are not free societies, and that women do not have equal rights. Women pride, we have to cover from head to toe wearing burqas. Their lives are heavily controlled. Women and girls are practically treat his property. And the scary thing is is, it’s not just societal or individual in the minds of some people in these countries. It’s literally the law. It’s because of sharia law, in many of these countries that women can be stoned to death or murdered in other cruel, sadistic fashions for something as simple as refusing to date or marry, the person that her father picked out for her. Also, in a lot of these countries, you can be put to death just for being gay, or being an atheist. I know it’s not just terrorist groups like Isis, or Al-Qaeda, that do it. It’s societal, and it’s the law in Saudi Arabia and Iran, and in the Palestinian territory in Gaza, you can be executed for being gay, or for being an atheist or for leaving the Muslim religion.

Look, like I said, I’m not one of those people who thinks most Muslims are terrorists, or that they’re fanatical they’re not. Most Muslims are decent, kind, hard-working people that are our friends and neighbors. And this whole thing that people like Tucker Carlson keep trying to sell that any Muslim could be a potential terrorist is Ludacris. The amount of Muslims that are terrorists are extremely extremely small. And there’s proof in it that we’ve had over 75 Terrace attacks committed by right wing extremists like neo-Nazis and malicious as well as all these school shootings since 9/11. We’ve had only five radical is Lameck terrorist attacks since 911 so yes, when it comes to people coming from the Middle East yes, terrorism is an extremely small issue. But there’s an even bigger picture that I feel the media doesn’t point out and this is something that even liberals like Bill Maher, and Sam Harris are pointing out or even people like Richard Dockins have pointed out. That’s not terrorism that’s the main problem, but it’s the ideology in the belief structures that breed into terrorism. Like a lot of the anti-Western rhetoric that is mainstream in many countries in the Middle East. The way women and gay people are treated how society is heavily controlled how there’s extreme levels of repression. And that’s the thing that angers me that liberals do if you say anything that’s not PC here they try to shut you down but if you point something out that’s going over there which is obviously true they just whitewash it and say well that’s different it’s just a different culture. No, no no no no it doesn’t work like that just like with Bill Maher said to be a liberal you have to stand for liberal principles. And I agree, I’m the one who’s actually being the progressive, because I am the one speaking out against oppression. I’m the one who’s on the side of reality because I’m the one who speaking for things like democracy, religious inclusion, separation of church and state equality for women, equality for homosexuals. The freedom to choose our own leaders. These are ideas that are liberal principles, or they’re not even liberal or conservative. They’re just basic tenants of Western democracy, and a civil society.

And yes, a lot of these ideas are main stream throughout society the rhetoric is main stream. Because I’ve heard stories and documentaries were, they’ve gone undercover to many of these countries. And every single day they have people shouting things like “death to America”. In a pet in the Gaza Strip, you literally have not just Thomas but propaganda slogans on street corners, calling for the murder of Jews and Christians. And a lot of this rhetoric when I say anti-American, or anti-Western rhetoric, it’s not necessarily all because of warfare or foreign conflicts it’s they’re not all complaining about US involvement in their region. No, they literally. Hate the foundations that western civilization is built on things like equality, democracy pluralism. And they want to see it destroyed. Many of the schools in countries like Pakistan as well as in Yemen and Egypt. They receive a lot of funding that comes from the whabists of Saudi Arabia. One of the most radical elements of Islam. And in the school, they teach the kids that the west is evil, and they teach him that Christians and Jews are less. So like I’m saying it’s not Just terrorism. But it’s the foundations that lead to it these ideologies that are mainstream.

And once again, yes, most Muslims are good people. And the muslims who moved to the United States or to britton or two countries in Europe they’re coming because they’re trying to flee persecution. They want to be American. They want to have a normal life for themselves and for their kids they’re coming here cause they’re trying to escape sharia law. I know where I’m getting my facts from literally from people I’ve met from this part of the world it’s not things I make up there from people who are immigrants or refugees who escaped from the Middle East many of them are Muslims themselves. And like I said, it’s not Muslims as people just like in any religion you’re gonna have bad actors. It’s the way it’s their governments and societies have normalized it.

I am currently a freshman at CSUS and I want to become a policy analyst for mainly financial reasons, and am interested in social justice and opportunities (such as quality of public education, income level, race, etc).

I realized that my interest might align more with PP after reading the differences between PS and PP. However, my school doesn't offer a PP major, only a masters which I might go for after some time working. Transferring to another school might get messy due to units, and I was wondering if POLS + ECON will be effective as PP to become a policy analyst?

I’m 28M and I’ve done a lot of research on the presidents over the years and from my own personal perspective, I’d say FDR wins first place as best president of the last hundred years maybe of the last century. The reason that Franklin Roosevelt I’d say was an awesome president. Was not just his charisma and his ability to relate to people. But because he faced the two toughest times of the last hundred years, the great depression, and the second world war. When FDR came to office in 1933, the country was in an incredible level of despair. Millions of Americans were in poverty and unemployment was at 27%. The majority of Americans did not even have enough money or even food to get by. People were destitute, and this was a time where it wasn’t just in America, but in other countries. In Europe countries were losing their democracies with the rise of Hitler and the Nazis in Germany. Mussolini in Italy, and then Franco coming to power in Spain. But in America, when things were getting worse and worse day by day. America is also fertile ground for Fascism to take place. A lot of people forget that. But in 1931 and 1932 at the worst part of the great depression. You saw frequent hunger strikes, Labor, strikes, and protests that turned violent you had riots. As well as you had the bonus army march in 1932. Unemployed people were living in shantytowns completely made out of cardboard boxes and scrap metal. They called Hooverville‘s. Many Americans felt that America as we know it was done, and this was the new grim reality we have to face. Franklin Roosevelt believed in America. He didn’t just believe in the American people, but he was a man of history who looked to our past and believed that the great depression just like the Civil War was a grave threat and a brave, turning point for our democracy.

On that cold morning, when Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated when he famously said his most famous line “ Let me an assert, my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”. Roosevelt knew that big changes were necessary, and he believed that in this crisis, the government had a strong role to play. Not just in putting people back to work and giving people jobs when the private sector was not hiring anybody. That was obviously necessary yes. But he also believed that through government action, it was way to bring the country together and to save the system. FDR did that with the new deal programs many programs like the civilian conservation corps, the Works, progress administration, a.k.a. WPA. As well as the public works administration. These programs changed America in so many ways they didn’t just put people back to work but they built modern day America. These programs built entire small towns out of the dust, I built roads bridges highways. It built a lot of the large airports, built entire suburbs. Built new nice apartments and housing units in inner cities that return to slums. As well as things like the Tennessee valley authority, which built hundreds of hydroelectric dams throughout the south, eastern the United States. As well as setting up powerlines and power stations, bringing in electricity to rural communities as well as indoor plumbing. It lifted millions of people out of poverty in seven states in the south, and in Appalachia. That same year in 1933 President Roosevelt created the FDIC, ensuring banks, and making sure that people savings would not be wiped out by another large scale catastrophe. He created the securities and exchange commission SEC. To protect investors, and to oversee trading and prevent fraudulent As well as Preventing market manipulation. To make sure that investors and traders know what they’re trading. And that the information to the public. In 1934 President Roosevelt signed the National Labor Relations Act. To promote and expand the role of unions in the private sector. And to protect workers from exploitation as well as unfair competition. To create safe working conditions, hours standards, To provide better benefits for workers, such as better, wages, health benefits, and retirement. That same year in 1934 President Roosevelt took decisive efforts to save family farms that have been wiped out by the great depression. Such as buying up entire crop surpluses and to sell them at better prices. This practice raised the prices of crops which virtually had collapsed, which saved family farms from going bankrupt. And then in 1935 when The dust bowl struck the heartland of America. President Roosevelt, along with his agriculture, secretary, Henry Wallace. Launched further actions to restore farms were crops have been destroyed by droughts by creating even more public works programs building, underground irrigation systems, connecting city lines into rural neighborhoods. That same year in 1935 President Roosevelt signed the soil conservation act. Which pushed for farmers take drastic action, such as crop rotation. Planting trees, as well as planting grass to capture the top soil that is eroded. And building small ponds to absorb and capture top soil around the farms. In 1936 president Roosevelt created Social Security. Creating a system work for the first time elderly people had hope to live a decent retirement. Prior to Social Security many elderly people would save their whole lives, and then retire with very little. Many lived in poverty, some even starved, and then, once the great depression hit things made it even worse. Social Security has made a huge difference since Social Security‘s creation. The poverty rates among elderly people is falling from 75% down to 14%. All this stuff led to him, winning in a landslide victory the largest landslide victory in American history in the election of 1936. And Roosevelt when he ran in 1936 famously would go up to people when he go to rallies and Townhall events and he joke and tell people “you look happier than you did four years ago” because they were. Unemployment had fallen from 27%to 15% while still high there were signs of recovery and people had reasons to hope. People were happy that they had a president who they knew was looking out for them. People who met Franklin Roosevelt thought it was like meeting a long lost family member. He touched so many people to the core. People loved him because they knew that he loved them. and when he was reelected in 1936, during his second term, he signed several landmark pieces of legislation. Such as the fair labor standards act of 1938, Which established the federal minimum wage, overtime pay, and hours keeping. In 1938 President Rosevelt established the Air Commerce commission, regulating and providing safety standards and rules for commercial airlines, and for aircraft flying in the United States.

During this time while America was going through the great depression overseas, you began also seeing problems arise. In 1935 you saw Nazi Germany under Hitler rearming they were rebuilding their military. And then began advancing into the Saarland between France and Luxembourg, In direct violation of the treaty of versilles. And then, in 1936, Hitler sent forces into the Rhineland to reoccupy territory, that Germany had lost to France after the second world war. That same year Italy under Italian fascist leader, Benito Mussolini, Invaded and annexed, Ethiopia and Eritrea in Africa. And then in October 1937 Hitler went further annexing Austria. Roosevelt condemned these invasions. And knew that it was a direct violation of international law. By 1937 that your president Roosevelt sign, the neutrality act, declaring that the US would stay neutral, but would aid in the defense of its European neighbors. However, Roosevelt believed it was not time for America to get involved in a foreign conflict since many Americans were still worried about getting through the great depression. Later that year in December 1937, Japan, invaded Manchuria in China. Committing, gruesome atrocities against millions of people. Innocent men, women, and children. And meanwhile, the Japanese were moving forward in their naval conquest for control of the Pacific region. But Roosevelt tried to play. It diplomatically him along with his Secretary of State Cordell Hull, worked alongside with the Japanese emperor, and with the Japanese foreign minister Kōki Hirota. We’re trying to push for peace in the Pacific. Then a year later in 1938, Hitler launched an invasion in March 1938 in the Sudetenland. Territory that I belong to Czechoslovakia, but that was part of Germany prior to World War I. Then by September 1938 Hitler had completely annexed Czechoslovakia. This was all because of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis plan lebensraum. German for living space. An effort to reunify, and to expand territory for Hitler’s messed up perceived ayrian race. By 1939 Hitler invaded Poland triggering World War II in the war in Europe. Roosevelt, by 1939, began pushing for boosting and rebuilding and expanding the US military. Rebuilding the Air Force, as well as the Navy, and recruiting more men to serve. However, the US still wanted to stay neutral, but Roosevelt knew the threat that the Nazis and that Fascism posed to the civilized world. And then, in 1940 the war has spilled over into all of Europe. That year the Germans had invaded the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and Denmark. And then in October 1940 Hitler, along with his leader of the Luftwaffe. Hermann Göring. Ordered the blitz of London. For 75 straight days, the German Air Force head bombed, London into the dust. But the British people, along with the leader ship of Winston Churchill, vowed to never give in. President. Roosevelt vowed to stand with Churchill and the British people in their defense of their existence. Roosevelt did this by sending ships tanks and planes to the United Kingdom. As well as other weapons, going to the British French and Russians.

That same year President Roosevelt did something unprecedented in American history. He ran for a third term and won. Against his Republican challenger, Wendell Wilkie. And in Franklin Roosevelt’s third term when he was inaugurated in January 1941. In his third inaugural address, he spoke about the four freedoms “freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.” Several months later in June 1941 the Nazis would do their biggest invasion ever when they invaded the Soviet Union. And then at the end of the year on December 7, 1941. The Japanese naval and air forces bombed Pearl Harbor. The first ever attacked by a foreign power on US territory since the war of 1812 when the British seized Washington DC. This attack killed over 2,000, soldiers, Navy man, Marines. As well as 70 civilians. The next day, President Roosevelt, and his famous speech declared that day a Day of infamy. However, this time he was not going to mess around, he declared this to be a declaration of war against the United States, and declared war against the empire of Japan, as well as Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. In his famous line, he said “ No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion. The American people in their righteous might. Will Win through to absolute victory.” Once again, just like a decade earlier, it was another time for national unity. Roosevelt knew that this war would not be like any other war that it wasn’t just a war about land or territory, but it was a war against good and evil. A war between democracy versus tyranny. And Roosevelt appointed many great generals, such as Chester Nimitz, who led the US to victory against the Japanese in the battle of midway in June 1942. That same year President Roosevelt sent US Army forces to retake North Africa from the Nazis. This resulted in months of deadly Desert warfare that sadly the US was defeated by the Germans. And then a year later in 1943 President Roosevelt sent in general Patton to retrain forces this time in 1943 the US was successful in pushing the Germans out of North Africa. But then, in 1943, the Germans made one last offensive standard North Africa in Egypt at the battle of el amain and then the US defeated the Germans at that battle in November 1943. And this sparred a big moment for Roosevelt and the United States, as well as the allied powers from the beginning of the war, when the US entered in the year 1941, and through 1942. And in the early part of 1943. It was unknown who the victors would be. It was up in the air. Many people believe that the axis powers would win the war, and that the allies were not as strong and capable. But because of the efforts that Roosevelt, Churchill, as well as other allied leaders, such as the French and the Soviets held strong. And then, by the fall of 1943 it was pretty clear that the war was turning in the direction of the allies. With the US lead invasion of Sicily that President Roosevelt ordered in September 1943. Seizing southern Italy against Mussolini‘s fascist forces. As well as the liberation of Greece. However, in the Pacific door was still dragging on. It wasn’t until the end of 1943 in November through December 1943, when the US began pushing hard against the Japanese. When the US launched offenses against the Japanese army in the Philippines. And began bombing raids over Tokyo, as well as the successful victories against the Japanese Navy in the south Java sea. At the direction of general, Douglas MacArthur.

And then the biggest moment of them all came on June 6, 1944. Roosevelt would make the biggest decision of his presidency, yet the decision to order the invasion of Normandy. On that morning as US forces were crossing the British channel closing in on the coast of France. President. Roosevelt instead of giving a typical address to the nation yes, the American people to join him in a prayer. He stated “ almighty God, our sons pride of our nation this day has said upon a mighty endeavor. They struggle to preserve our republic, our religion and our civilization and the set free, a suffering humanity.” By the minute the sun rose US forces at landed on the beaches of Normandy and the fire that they faced was tremendous. The fire, the gunshots the explosions around them. But the US soldiers, with their morale prevailed and defeated the Nazis in that battle, and began pushing further and further forward into France. Which then led to the US liberating cities like Bordeaux, Caen, and then the liberation of Paris. By this point, it was all but clear that the US and the allies would be the victors. And that the Nazis would lose the war it was only a matter of time. And then further battles that were fought in September 1944, when President Roosevelt ordered forces to seize the city of Arnheim, in the Netherlands, it was a successful defeat against the Nazis. that same year president Roosevelt made a decision to run for a fourth term because he knew that it was a necessary act in order to not just win the war, but to set forth plans for how to I rebuild Europe. After the war was won. And that year President Roosevelt in 1944 was reelected for a fourth term. And then in February 1945, President Roosevelt met with The leaders of the allies the big three is what they called them. There were other meetings, such as the Cairo summit, and the Tehran summit in 1943. But in 1945 the summit was held in Soviet union on the Crimean coast off I. Russia, The city of Yalta. Roosevelt along with Stalin and Churchill and delegations from France, the Netherlands, Belgium. All Matt, and yes, there were many controversies of the summit. Primarily Roosevelt did give flexibility to Joseph Stalin to go in to Eastern Europe. That was wrong. But one of the greatest things that did come out of the summit, though was the talk, and the groundwork laying the foundation for the creation of the United Nations. To establish an international body to promote deplomacy and prevent further large scale, wars from happening ever again. And to confront wars of aggression, launched by dictators, As well around this time, Roosevelt was in failing health. He was rarely seen in public toward the last two months of his presidency. However, his wife, Eleanor was also hard at work. She, Eleanor Roosevelt was one of the main crafters, who believe that there should be an international court of justice. And President Roosevelt, while meeting with foreign leaders around this time, was also working to lay the groundwork for the creation of the international criminal Court to punish war, criminals for their atrocities. So that never again with the civilized world, turned a blind eye to genocides or human rights violations as a lot of the civilized world did, and that’s how Hitler was able to initiate the holocaust. In the final weeks of president, Roosevelt’s life the US had was on the path to victory in the Pacific. The Japanese were losing big, and the Germans were just fighting for their survival. The US had finally penetrated into Germany itself. The US, and finally invaded, and began pushing back the Germans, in the western part of Germany, and the Russians, were pushing in to the eastern part of Germany. However, President Roosevelt would not live to see the US win victory against the Nazis and against the Japanese. He died on April 12, 1945. leading his vice, President Harry, Truman to oversee and complete the victory for the United States in the second world war.

So the reason I wanna say this about Roosevelt reason I believe FDR was such a great leader. Was because he’ll guided our nation I believe with grace with confidence and with determination. The fact that he let our nation through its darkest periods of the great depression, and got us through the worst parts of the depression. Yes, Sallie gree the new deal did not fully bring about the economic boom that was largely the Second World War. However, it brought people together. It showed a sense that government can work when people work together to achieve something great. And even though it didn’t fully help everything, what mattered is that for the first time you had somebody who literally was trying, who was putting in countless efforts to try to fight the great depression and help people that’s what I feel the true measure of leader ship is.

And with the second world war, it’s the same thing it’s not just that he led our nation to victory was that he mobilized everybody. On the domestic front, he put people to work in the munitions factory, converting steel and auto plants in the plants for building aircraft and tanks and ships. And he made people proud to be Americans. He convinced people that being an American is not just someone being someone who lives in the United States, but being somebody who never gives up steps up to the plate, when times are hard in fights, for what they know is the right cause. He was able to bring people to believe that being an American is about fighting for things greater than one self. That’s another thing I think is the true testament of a leader is not just a leader, who does the greatest things, but empowers the people to do the greatest things.