Election Hearing Board
Election Shared Governance Review
Election Grievance Clearinghouse
Election Senate Executive Committee
Classified Staff Council
Promotion and Tenure
College of Education
College of Fine Arts
College of Architecture, Planning and Landscape Architecture
Governor's decision on the budget
Disability Resource Center (DRC)
Constitution & Bylaws Revisions
mail or electronic ballots
an electronic ballot
Animal And Biomedical Industries BS
Course Syllabus Policy
Alternative Grade System of S/P/C/D/E With S/P/F
UA Inclusive Excellence Statement
Teacher Course Evaluation
Office of Instruction and Assessment
MetadataShow full item record
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Social Desirability Bias in the 2016 Presidential ElectionKlar, Samara; Weber, Christopher R.; Krupnikov, Yanna; Univ Arizona (WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH, 2016-01-01)Partisanship is a stable trait but expressions of partisan preferences can vary according to social context. When particular preferences become socially undesirable, some individuals refrain from expressing them in public, even in relatively anonymous settings such as surveys and polls. In this study, we rely on the psychological trait of self-monitoring to show that Americans who are more likely to adjust their behaviors to comply with social norms (i.e. high self-monitors) were less likely to express support for Donald Trump during the 2016 Presidential Election. In turn, as self-monitoring decreases, we find that the tendency to express support for Trump increases. This study suggests that - at least for some individuals - there may have been a tendency in 2016 to repress expressed support for Donald Trump in order to mask socially undesirable attitudes.
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS IN JUDICIAL ELECTIONS: SEPARATING MONEY FROM THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESSCLUBB, JACOB RILEY (The University of Arizona., 2016)This thesis examines campaign contributions in judicial elections. Increasing campaign costs have created a perception that judges’ decisions may be biased by the contributions they receive. Regardless of actual bias, perceived bias is enough to warrant concern because it threatens the legitimacy of the judiciary. Though money presents a problem for the judiciary, elections serve as a beneficial method of selecting judges. Additionally, money is an important aspect in elections and cannot simply be eliminated. Publicly funded elections have been proposed to counteract the problem; however, the findings in this thesis demonstrate that they are no longer a viable option. Recent court cases and a lack of funding have made publicly funded elections unworkable. Instead, this paper proposes a system of judicial disqualification. Disqualifying judges who have a perceived bias due to contributions eliminates the threat to legitimacy.The proposal also takes this decision out of the judge’s hands and allows an independent panel to decide possible bias. The paper demonstrates the ability of a disqualification system to eliminate the negative effects of contributions without harming the positives associated with elections.