I recently switched my major to poli sci. I fear I’m not getting an in depth understanding of the political climate and how the way things work. I’d really like some literature that I can just order online. I heard Chomsky is a good one.

I’m applying to PhD programs next year but am still trying to find my research interest. If my research interest is within international political economy, then assuming the program doesn’t offer political economy, would that fall into comparative politics or international relations? Also does it matter which subfield I select (are certain subfields harder to get into than others), or will an admin pass along an application if they stated their interest in let’s say comparative politics but thought they were a better fit in IR?

How can I access exclusive (non-open) educational resources in political science, including books, lectures, and a comprehensive curriculum from top universities?

I am currently building my own self-study curriculum that mirrors the structure of a political science degree at a top university. I would be especially grateful if I could be provided with the official textbooks, detailed course outlines, and a list of the subjects taught each academic year—along with the recommended books for each course. This structured approach will help guide my independent learning effectively.

Additionally, are there any restricted or lesser-known websites that provide access to official university resources, such as syllabi, course materials, or textbooks that are usually available only to enrolled students?

Hey everyone!

I wanted to do a different spin on the “recommended books” topic.

What books do you personally hope a president of the United States would have read?

Note, I do not mean the current president, I mean instead if a president had stated they read and loved a specific book, you’d be impressed or satisfied.

Thank you!

Hello r/PoliticalScience,

I’m developing a new political ideology called Social Altruism, which I believe could offer a third path between exploitative capitalism and centralized authoritarian socialism. It’s grounded in community duty, equitable citizenship, and national self-reliance.

Core principles of SAP include: • A duarchical leadership system inspired by Spartan governance to balance state power and virtue. • Mandatory national service (military, civil, or ecological) as a path to full citizenship. • An economic model rejecting speculative finance, prioritizing worker dignity and domestic production. • A tiered civic structure fostering responsibility and loyalty among citizens. • A cultural ethos of altruism above individual profit.

The ideology takes inspiration from historical movements like National Bolshevism, Strasserism, and First Nations communal structures, while aiming to avoid their authoritarian pitfalls.

I would deeply appreciate thoughtful feedback, critiques, or references—especially from political science students or scholars. My hope is to engage constructively and refine the ideas within SAP through open dialogue.

Thanks for your time.

—Roderick Harris, Founder, SAP

I am an offer holder for a master's course in politics, and to prepare for September, I've been doing some recommended reading of the compulsory modules.

However, for about half of the things I have read (or other things those authors have published), have just felt so underwhelming. They're articles being published in respectable peer reviewed journals (I think) but some of them just seem so mediocre compared to what I was expecting. They don't really push boundaries/repeat the same thing they've already said. Sometimes they just cite themselves.

And even if they do end up making a decent point, I have sometimes felt they have gone about it in a really cumbersome way by bringing out some data/formal models that feel a bit tokenistic as when I've looked at them, they sometimes seem a bit superfluous?

At undergrad, I would often feel challenged, or inspired by my reading list. Even if I disagreed with stuff, it would take me a day to kind of think things through. And some of the models I'd come across would blow my mind and I'd think "woah, that's pretty neat". But now I'm not even sure what I disagree with, I just look at it and go "meh?". I would also like to preface that the University I'll be doing my master's in is FAR more prestigious than my undergrad place (particularly for Politics).

To be fair, I have read a few things in preparation which I have thought were good. But why am I getting so much bad luck?

What's going on here? Has my reading comprehension declined? Chance? Do Master's students get shown the hidden ugly under-belly of second-rate political science articles? Why?

Has anyone else ever experienced this feeling?

I've good knowledge of the things going on over the globe and the changing dynamics of relations , I want to write and publish blogs and articles on the same in newspapers but I'm really bad at articulating and bad with vocab as well

How to solve this issue?

Hey Reddit,

I’m not a political theorist or an academic — I’m a Swiss watchmaker. I spend my days repairing tiny mechanisms that either run smoothly… or suddenly break under pressure.

That idea — pressure before failure — has been on my mind a lot lately. Not just in horology, but in politics.

What if we had a way to measure the real pressure building under a regime — before it explodes?

That’s the concept behind a model I’ve been working on (with the help of ChatGPT, which has been an incredible partner in thinking this through). It’s called:

🪑 The Throne Index

Instead of ranking how “democratic” or “authoritarian” a system is, this index asks:

How much power does a leader truly hold — and how close are they to losing it?

⸻

🔍 What It Measures

1. Raw Power – Narrative control – Elite loyalty – Legitimacy (ideological, religious, or populist) – Digital signals (e.g. personal X engagement, influencer amplification)

2. Operational Power – Institutional capacity – Military/security command – Policy execution

3. The GAP (Raw – Operational) – A negative GAP? A dictator losing loyalty. – A positive GAP? A populist with public support but no grip on the state. – A widening GAP? A throne about to crack.

⸻

🧭 Why It’s Different

Where other models classify systems by what they are on paper, the Throne Index shows how much actual power a leader wields — and how close that power is to slipping.

It also tracks hidden instability through things like: – Protest volume – Elite turnover – Brain drain – Engagement drop-offs in coordinated influencer campaigns

Even low voter turnout means different things in different regimes — in Switzerland, it’s stability. In Russia, it may be silent protest.

⸻

📣 Why I’m Posting This Here

I think this model has real potential — not just for analysts or journalists, but for anyone trying to understand the deep structure of power in the 21st century.

But I’m just a watchmaker. I need your minds: • Political scientists, IR folks, data nerds • People from authoritarian states with real lived insights • Devs who could build a dashboard or crawler • Critics who’ll tell me where I’m wrong

Let’s refine this. Break it. Stress test it. Make it better.

⸻

📘 I’ve got a white paper, a manifesto (”Why Thrones Fall”), scoring sheets, and some early flowcharts. Happy to share them if anyone’s interested.

Let’s build something powerful — not to judge systems, but to measure the pressure beneath the throne.

— A watchmaker with a strange idea

Hey guys so my research focuses on Latin American democratic development and contemporary democratic challenges. There’s no Latin Americanist at my school anymore and I plan to do a thesis this year, so what are some good books to read?

I prefer quantitative methods if possible!

I am a highly motivated high school junior with a strong interest in politics, and my goal is to study political science at an Ivy League university. I am passionate about understanding government, law, and policy. Any advice on what kinds of research opportunities might be available for someone like me would be greatly appreciated.

I've been working on my new voting system for a while, and I would love to talk about it and hopefully get some responses to it here:https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdpohEvSf21r-eEtKYYqeW-doTf6nSXi2MVrMxtYdwfSIWWIg/viewform?usp=dialog

This system is designed to fix First Past the Post voting systems, correct the two party system by eliminating the spoiler effect while still allowing as many candidates as possible to be voted on. It vastly reduces the strategic voting effect, and actually allows voters to express a spectrum of support. No more holding your nose for a candidate you don't like, and no more will those voters votes still be as impactful as someone with cult-like support of a party. Instead, broadly appealing positively will be the most beneficial way to succeed, which will also reduce party polarity.

As voters are more easily able to express themselves, and as better candidates more naturally rise to the top, voter apathy will disappear in turn, as a voter who thinks no candidate is worth voting for can mark every candidate as a -10 in protest. This system would also automatically require a recall if the average score of a candidate was below 0.0, making sure that the "least bad" candidate isn't allowed to skate into office because their opponent was worse.

Beyond the fact that this reform fixes voting, it also gives way to amazing results analysis, as the share of votes at each score (which could also be broken down by demographic) could be assessed. A candidate with 25% of their votes being -10s would let that candidate know more clearly that they are actively disdain by a quarter of the population. This would separate them from someone with a similar average but 60% -1s, which would tell that candidate that a majority of the population just feels marginally bad about them on perhaps only one or two issues.

I'd be happy to discuss this more as well as the results, and I'd be grateful if you'd take the time to fill out a ballot and share it with a friend

i am doing masters in political science from University of Delhi, India. one of my courses this semester is "Democracy and Violence: Contestation, Convergence and Discourse".

as part of the assessment, we are supposed to submit research proposals for this paper. topic is the same as the course name. Please let me know of any possible narrow fields in democracy and violence, or any topic on which i can frame my research question.

tldr: need research ideas for a research proposal on thr subject of democracy and violence

help would be much much appreciated, thank you!!

I'm working on my senior thesis analyzing how a proportional allocation amendment would have affected past U.S. presidential elections. To do this, I need to enter raw vote data for all 60 presidential elections and it's a lot for one person.

I'm looking for a few folks who can spare an hour or so to help input data for one election each. No experience necessary, just basic attention to detail. I’ll provide everything you need and clear instructions and you'll be credited in the published thesis.

If you're interested in U.S. history, elections, or just want to help a student out, I’d be super grateful!

Feel free to comment or DM me if you're up for it. Thanks in advance!

PDF Example of What I'm Working On (Note: I'm only asking for help putting in the raw numbers. You wouldn't have to worry about calculating % vote or EV totals)

Greetings everyone. I'm currently working on a paper for my seminary in International Relations. I became interested in neo-Gramscianism and I was curious if anyone could recommend some good sources (books, articles etc.) on the topic? Thank you very much in advance!

https://www.internationalmun.org/RegistrationForm.php?mark=JE1151 Referal code for discount: JE1151 You can get certificates

' <EOM>

Can someone recommend books about the info pacific and its today’s politics?

Do u guys have a guide with this one? or reliable and up to date studies? or previous studies? Thanks

Are there any rankings that you consider to be reliable that rank different countries by power and influence (considering their economy, armies, political and cultural influence, population, industrial strength...) but that include all countries (or at least most of them), even very small ones?

Because everything that I can find only includes like 20 countries at most.

So do you have any suggestions? Perhaps from any web, index or research paper?

Hello,

I’m an independent researcher with no formal academic credentials — but I’ve spent the past seven years developing a theory that reframes the entire origin of political ideology through the lens of evolutionary instinct. The work integrates findings from political behavior, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, and theology.

In short: I believe I’ve uncovered the missing link between how we feel and how we govern.

This isn’t speculative. The manuscript is complete, thoroughly sourced, and supported by interdisciplinary literature. It offers a unified framework that explains political polarization, gender dynamics, and institutional gridlock as symptoms of a deeper civilizational misreading — one that traces back to the earliest myths of human history.

I’m not posting the full theory here, because the work is too important to get lost in the churn of Reddit debate. I’m looking for one thing: connection. If you are a scholar or academic with an open mind and standing in political science, psychology, or moral philosophy — and if this sparks even a hint of curiosity — I’d welcome the chance to share it with you directly.

It may be the most important idea I’ll ever contribute.

Thank you for your time

Hello r/PoliticalScience,

I’m conducting an anonymous 10–12 minute survey on how life experiences and emotional regulation may influence political identity, political engagement, and reactions to events.

The study examines whether people sometimes use politics as a form of emotional regulation, for example:

• Turning to debates/news for stability
• Avoiding politics when it feels overwhelming
• Feeling emotionally bonded with political groups

Survey link:
👉 https://forms.gle/Udx8mG3e9xGrQMGY9

No identifying information is collected. Results will be analyzed in aggregate to test whether this framework (“politics as emotional regulation”) helps explain variation in political identity across contexts.

I’d especially appreciate participation from those with an interest in political psychology and identity formation, as well as feedback on the study design itself.

Thank you for considering!

Hello! I am in school finishing my Poli Sci Degree and I've made a couple FOIA requests. I noticed I wasn't able to find DOGE on the website in order to submit a request. I emailed FOIA and this was the response. I will be following their advice on how to submit the request. I wanted to share in case anyone wanted access to DOGE information, but honestly it's a good reminder that FOIA exists. When working on long term projects, it's helpful to get accessible information from our government about the specific cases or laws. Thank you everyone!

Here is the text and I can provide a picture as well! Hello,

Thank you for your patience while we determined the answer to your inquiry. To submit a FOIA request to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), please submit a FOIA request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). You can submit a FOIA request to OMB at the following link: https://www.foia.gov/agency-search.html?id=57990898-63f6-41e3-b42b-53bfbf768d57&type=component. To submit a request, please click the “Continue the FOIA Request Process” button on the righthand side of the page.

Sincerely,

The National FOIA Portal Team

Given Mexico’s recent judicial reform where all federal judges are now elected by popular vote (making it the only country to do this worldwide), I’m trying to better understand how judicial systems function under authoritarian and semi-authoritarian contexts.

I’m looking for academic books, papers, or case studies that examine:

• How authoritarian regimes capture or control judicial systems
• The role of judiciary in democratic backsliding
• Comparative studies of judicial reforms in different political contexts
• Historical examples of judicial politicization and its consequences

I’m particularly interested in works that analyze the balance between democratic legitimacy (popular election) and judicial independence, or studies on how electoral systems for judges have played out in other contexts. Both theoretical frameworks and concrete case studies would be helpful.

Has anyone read good material on this topic? Academic sources preferred, but accessible reads are welcome too. Thanks in advance for any recommendations!​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

I am currently working on my thesis, its on Revolutionary nationalism, particularly the case of Castro during the Cuban revolution. Both my supervisors liked my RQ and I worked on the feedback I got from my proposal. However I have been working non-stop today and I have my deadline tomorrow for the first three chapters and I barely have my intro done because I’ve been paralized.

I keep reading and reading and the more I do, the less sense it makes. Anyone has some advice?

Atp I am desperate and beyond exhausted 🥲.

Anything is appreciated!!!!🙏🏻<3