Semra Sevi
@semrasevi.bsky.social
1.4K followers 3.1K following 33 posts
Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto www.semrasevi.com
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Reposted by Semra Sevi
inessadeangelis.bsky.social
Which Canadian MPs are on Bluesky and what do they post?

My new paper w/ @rohanalexander.bsky.social in @cjps-rcsp.bsky.social unpacks these questions, finding MPs
use it like Twitter to discuss policy, the Ottawa bubble & constituency

Read more: doi.org/10.1017/S000...

#polsky #commsky #cdnpoli
What are Canadian Members of Parliament Doing on Bluesky? research note abstract
semrasevi.bsky.social
Congrats! Can't wait to read this.
semrasevi.bsky.social
Very cool! Looking forward to read these. The last one is intriguing 😉
semrasevi.bsky.social
Thanks. Republicans appear more biased, but that doesn't mean they're more likely to hide it. We didn't measure overt bias.
semrasevi.bsky.social
Thanks! Would love to hear more about what you're doing with list experiments.
semrasevi.bsky.social
Congrats, Alex!! I’m so happy for you!
Reposted by Semra Sevi
psrm.bsky.social
🪃Do legislators trade proposals?

➡️Leveraging a lottery in the Canadian Parliament, @semrasevi.bsky.social & D.P. Green find little evidence MPs second motions to gain favor. Support seems driven by shared interests, not quid pro quo www.cambridge.org/core/journal... #FirstView
semrasevi.bsky.social
Why is reciprocity so weak in 🇨🇦?

Strong party discipline limits side deals even in the more flexible world of PMBs.

Our study, using a rare real-world lottery, shows:

Legislative support often reflects shared values, not traded favours.

Not all politics is transactional.
semrasevi.bsky.social
So why second at all?

✅ Shared party
✅ Common values
✅ Constituency interests

In other words: homophily, not horse-trading.

Sometimes, MPs just support what they believe in, not because they expect payback.
semrasevi.bsky.social
Weak evidence for strategic seconding.

MPs with better lottery spots are slightly more likely to second others, and there's almost no evidence that favours are returned in future parliaments.
semrasevi.bsky.social
We tested two things:

🔁 Do MPs second each other within the same parliament?
🔄 Do they return favors across different parliaments?

The results?
semrasevi.bsky.social
After a PMB is introduced, MPs can formally second it to show support.

If reciprocity exists, we’d expect MPs with good lottery spots to second others hoping to get support back when it’s their turn.
semrasevi.bsky.social
In Canada, MPs are randomly assigned a spot in a lottery that determines who can introduce a private member’s bill (PMB).

This lets us test:

· Who supports whom

· Whether support gets repaid

· If it’s loyalty, strategy or something else
semrasevi.bsky.social
🚨NEW PAPER: Do legislators trade favours?

My latest with Donald Green uses a natural lottery in the Canadian Parliament to test whether MPs return favours when others support their proposals.

Our findings may surprise you.👇

www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
semrasevi.bsky.social
What changed?

When party labels appeared on ballots, voters relied more on partisan cues than indiv. candidate familiarity. Result? The personal edge of incumbents disappeared. Party > Person.

Link: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

@uoft.bsky.social
The Incumbency Advantage in Canadian Elections | Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique | Cambridge Core
The Incumbency Advantage in Canadian Elections
www.cambridge.org
semrasevi.bsky.social
FINDING #2: Party matters more than person

Incumbency advantage:
Liberals pre-1972: +16 pts
Conservatives pre-1972: +8 pts (not significant)
Post-1972: Both parties? Advantage vanishes.
semrasevi.bsky.social
Using data from 1867 to 2021, and a RDD, I estimate the causal impact of incumbency on electoral success.

FINDING #1: The incumbency advantage shrank dramatically.

✅ Before 1972: Incumbents had a 15-point edge.
❌ After 1972: Just 2 points, and no longer significant.
semrasevi.bsky.social
Before 1972, Canadian ballots showed only:
• Candidate names
• Occupations

No party labels. No shortcuts for voters.

Then came a 1970 law: Starting in 1972, ballots began listing party affiliations alongside candidate names.
semrasevi.bsky.social
🚨NEW PAPER: Do incumbents really have an edge in elections?

Research says yes. But what happens when party labels are added to the ballot?

A natural experiment from Canadian elections tells an interesting story👇🧵
Reposted by Semra Sevi
utoronto.ca
From classroom to control room: #UofT students join Global News on election night 🗳️ uoft.me/bzJ
Sevi and her students worked behind the scenes in the busy newsroom
Reposted by Semra Sevi
artsci.utoronto.ca
#UofTArtSci students joined @globalnews.ca on election night, working behind the scenes in the newsroom to help call live results — an unforgettable hands-on experience.

Read more: bit.ly/3YpJPQL
Professor Semra Sevi and her students standing behind a global news desk.