Emilee Chapman | Stanford University (original) (raw)

Uploads

Papers by Emilee Chapman

The Journal of Politics

This article joins a growing body of scholarship on political parties in arguing that democratic ... more This article joins a growing body of scholarship on political parties in arguing that democratic party politics should be concerned with avoiding the problem of factionalism. But existing responses to this problem have relied too heavily on conceptual distinctions between parties and factions. The dangers of factionalism cannot, in practice, be separated from the celebrated benefits of party politics. Both are rooted in the same aspects of social psychology. Consequently, I argue that we should understand the ideal of non-factionalism as the management of a set of chronic and ineradicable concerns about how group conflict can undermine the specific forms of political unity appropriate for a liberal democracy. This ideal is negative: focused on avoiding pathological forms of party politics rather than conforming to a particular positive model. It is also plural, encompassing several related normative concerns. And it is systemic-assessed at the level of party systems.

Annual Review of Political Science, Dec 4, 2023

American Political Science Review

Realism can mean many things in political theory. This article focuses on “common-sense realism,”... more Realism can mean many things in political theory. This article focuses on “common-sense realism,” an approach to decision making under uncertainty characterized by its posture toward risk. Common-sense realist arguments have become popular in recent democratic theory. One prominent example is found in debates over the responsible party institutional model (RPIM). RPIM’s main features are two-party competition for full control of government and party organizations that empower officeholders, not activists. Proponents of RPIM defend it in realist terms. They claim that efforts to pursue more ambitious democratic ideals jeopardize goods that RPIM can readily secure. In this article I articulate a realist approach to institutional evaluation that assesses proposals on three dimensions: robustness, feasibility, and stability. Using this approach, I demonstrate that the realist argument for RPIM is weaker than it initially appears. The debate over RPIM is not a debate between realism and ...

Journal of Politics (forthcoming - accepted version)

This article joins a growing body of scholarship on political parties in arguing that democratic ... more This article joins a growing body of scholarship on political parties in arguing that democratic party politics should be concerned with avoiding the problem of factionalism. But existing responses to this problem have relied too heavily on conceptual distinctions between parties and factions. The dangers of factionalism cannot, in practice, be separated from the celebrated benefits of party politics. Both are rooted in the same aspects of social psychology. Consequently, I argue that we should understand the ideal of non-factionalism as the management of a set of chronic and ineradicable concerns about how group conflict can undermine the specific forms of political unity appropriate for a liberal democracy. This ideal is negative: focused on avoiding pathological forms of party politics rather than conforming to a particular positive model. It is also plural, encompassing several related normative concerns. And it is systemic-assessed at the level of party systems.

American Political Science Review, 2022

Realism can mean many things in political theory. This article focuses on "common-sense realism,"... more Realism can mean many things in political theory. This article focuses on "common-sense realism," an approach to decision making under uncertainty characterized by its posture toward risk. Common-sense realist arguments have become popular in recent democratic theory. One prominent example is found in debates over the responsible party institutional model (RPIM). RPIM's main features are two-party competition for full control of government and party organizations that empower officeholders, not activists. Proponents of RPIM defend it in realist terms. They claim that efforts to pursue more ambitious democratic ideals jeopardize goods that RPIM can readily secure. In this article I articulate a realist approach to institutional evaluation that assesses proposals on three dimensions: robustness, feasibility, and stability. Using this approach, I demonstrate that the realist argument for RPIM is weaker than it initially appears. The debate over RPIM is not a debate between realism and idealism but between competing democratic ideals.

Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2020

Democracy is a collective activity that entails the creation and operation of collective agency. ... more Democracy is a collective activity that entails the creation and operation of collective agency. The importance of collective agency to democracy raises some important puzzles about the ethics of democracy, especially regarding the status of existing democratic institutions and practices. Foremost among these is the paradox of constitutionalism. On one hand, citizens ought to have the power to change the institutions and practices that structure their interactions and affect the kinds of things democratic communities are able to do with their public power. On the other hand, citizens can only exercise power democratically through institutions and practices that organize their disparate activities into a form of collective agency. How we resolve this paradox-that is, how we understand the normative status of existing democratic institutions and practices in practical deliberation-depends on which model of collective agency we use. This paper argues that the "joint intentions" model of shared agency is most compatible with mainstream theories of what democracy is for and what it must be able to do. The joint intentions model of collective agency has a number of important implications for the ethics of democracy, including for resolving the constitutional paradox. The joint intentions model of collective agency suggests that we might think of existing institutions and practices as part of a shared plan for democracy. If existing institutions and practices have the normative status of plans then they must have a special status in citizens' practical deliberations about how to contribute to democracy.

Representation, 2021

This paper advances normative theorizing about political parties by highlighting concerns arising... more This paper advances normative theorizing about political parties by highlighting concerns arising from recent empirical scholarship on marginal partisanship, affective polarization, and identity convergence. These phenomena challenge the ideal of healthy partisanship as characterized in recent democratic theory, and point toward a new theoretical agenda. I argue that democratic theorists' current focus on the virtues of mature partisanship has obscured essential questions about the scope of partisanship as an ideal and about processes of partisan socialization and mobilization.

American Journal of Political Science, Nov 15, 2019

In this article, I defend compulsory voting on the grounds that it reinforces the distinctive and... more In this article, I defend compulsory voting on the grounds that it reinforces the distinctive and valuable role that elections play in contemporary democracy. Some scholars have suggested that mandatory voting laws can improve government responsiveness to members of poor and marginalized groups who are less likely to vote. Critics of compulsory voting object that citizens can participate in a wide variety of ways; voting is not important enough to justify forcing people to do it. These critics neglect the importance of voting’s particular role in contemporary democratic practice, though. The
case for compulsory voting rests on an implicit, but widely shared, understanding of elections as special moments of mass participation that manifest the equal political authority of all citizens. The most prominent objections to mandatory voting fail to appreciate this distinctive role for voting and the way it is embedded within a broader democratic framework.

Book by Emilee Chapman

Princeton University Press eBooks, Sep 29, 2022

Other writing by Emilee Chapman

Dissertation by Emilee Chapman

The Journal of Politics

This article joins a growing body of scholarship on political parties in arguing that democratic ... more This article joins a growing body of scholarship on political parties in arguing that democratic party politics should be concerned with avoiding the problem of factionalism. But existing responses to this problem have relied too heavily on conceptual distinctions between parties and factions. The dangers of factionalism cannot, in practice, be separated from the celebrated benefits of party politics. Both are rooted in the same aspects of social psychology. Consequently, I argue that we should understand the ideal of non-factionalism as the management of a set of chronic and ineradicable concerns about how group conflict can undermine the specific forms of political unity appropriate for a liberal democracy. This ideal is negative: focused on avoiding pathological forms of party politics rather than conforming to a particular positive model. It is also plural, encompassing several related normative concerns. And it is systemic-assessed at the level of party systems.

Annual Review of Political Science, Dec 4, 2023

American Political Science Review

Realism can mean many things in political theory. This article focuses on “common-sense realism,”... more Realism can mean many things in political theory. This article focuses on “common-sense realism,” an approach to decision making under uncertainty characterized by its posture toward risk. Common-sense realist arguments have become popular in recent democratic theory. One prominent example is found in debates over the responsible party institutional model (RPIM). RPIM’s main features are two-party competition for full control of government and party organizations that empower officeholders, not activists. Proponents of RPIM defend it in realist terms. They claim that efforts to pursue more ambitious democratic ideals jeopardize goods that RPIM can readily secure. In this article I articulate a realist approach to institutional evaluation that assesses proposals on three dimensions: robustness, feasibility, and stability. Using this approach, I demonstrate that the realist argument for RPIM is weaker than it initially appears. The debate over RPIM is not a debate between realism and ...

Journal of Politics (forthcoming - accepted version)

This article joins a growing body of scholarship on political parties in arguing that democratic ... more This article joins a growing body of scholarship on political parties in arguing that democratic party politics should be concerned with avoiding the problem of factionalism. But existing responses to this problem have relied too heavily on conceptual distinctions between parties and factions. The dangers of factionalism cannot, in practice, be separated from the celebrated benefits of party politics. Both are rooted in the same aspects of social psychology. Consequently, I argue that we should understand the ideal of non-factionalism as the management of a set of chronic and ineradicable concerns about how group conflict can undermine the specific forms of political unity appropriate for a liberal democracy. This ideal is negative: focused on avoiding pathological forms of party politics rather than conforming to a particular positive model. It is also plural, encompassing several related normative concerns. And it is systemic-assessed at the level of party systems.

American Political Science Review, 2022

Realism can mean many things in political theory. This article focuses on "common-sense realism,"... more Realism can mean many things in political theory. This article focuses on "common-sense realism," an approach to decision making under uncertainty characterized by its posture toward risk. Common-sense realist arguments have become popular in recent democratic theory. One prominent example is found in debates over the responsible party institutional model (RPIM). RPIM's main features are two-party competition for full control of government and party organizations that empower officeholders, not activists. Proponents of RPIM defend it in realist terms. They claim that efforts to pursue more ambitious democratic ideals jeopardize goods that RPIM can readily secure. In this article I articulate a realist approach to institutional evaluation that assesses proposals on three dimensions: robustness, feasibility, and stability. Using this approach, I demonstrate that the realist argument for RPIM is weaker than it initially appears. The debate over RPIM is not a debate between realism and idealism but between competing democratic ideals.

Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2020

Democracy is a collective activity that entails the creation and operation of collective agency. ... more Democracy is a collective activity that entails the creation and operation of collective agency. The importance of collective agency to democracy raises some important puzzles about the ethics of democracy, especially regarding the status of existing democratic institutions and practices. Foremost among these is the paradox of constitutionalism. On one hand, citizens ought to have the power to change the institutions and practices that structure their interactions and affect the kinds of things democratic communities are able to do with their public power. On the other hand, citizens can only exercise power democratically through institutions and practices that organize their disparate activities into a form of collective agency. How we resolve this paradox-that is, how we understand the normative status of existing democratic institutions and practices in practical deliberation-depends on which model of collective agency we use. This paper argues that the "joint intentions" model of shared agency is most compatible with mainstream theories of what democracy is for and what it must be able to do. The joint intentions model of collective agency has a number of important implications for the ethics of democracy, including for resolving the constitutional paradox. The joint intentions model of collective agency suggests that we might think of existing institutions and practices as part of a shared plan for democracy. If existing institutions and practices have the normative status of plans then they must have a special status in citizens' practical deliberations about how to contribute to democracy.

Representation, 2021

This paper advances normative theorizing about political parties by highlighting concerns arising... more This paper advances normative theorizing about political parties by highlighting concerns arising from recent empirical scholarship on marginal partisanship, affective polarization, and identity convergence. These phenomena challenge the ideal of healthy partisanship as characterized in recent democratic theory, and point toward a new theoretical agenda. I argue that democratic theorists' current focus on the virtues of mature partisanship has obscured essential questions about the scope of partisanship as an ideal and about processes of partisan socialization and mobilization.

American Journal of Political Science, Nov 15, 2019

In this article, I defend compulsory voting on the grounds that it reinforces the distinctive and... more In this article, I defend compulsory voting on the grounds that it reinforces the distinctive and valuable role that elections play in contemporary democracy. Some scholars have suggested that mandatory voting laws can improve government responsiveness to members of poor and marginalized groups who are less likely to vote. Critics of compulsory voting object that citizens can participate in a wide variety of ways; voting is not important enough to justify forcing people to do it. These critics neglect the importance of voting’s particular role in contemporary democratic practice, though. The
case for compulsory voting rests on an implicit, but widely shared, understanding of elections as special moments of mass participation that manifest the equal political authority of all citizens. The most prominent objections to mandatory voting fail to appreciate this distinctive role for voting and the way it is embedded within a broader democratic framework.

Princeton University Press eBooks, Sep 29, 2022