DOCSLIB.ORG

Open Letter to Twitter to Restore Politwoops Access to API September 2015 We, the Undersigned, Are International Human Rights An

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Open Letter to Twitter to Restore Politwoops Access to API September 2015 We, the Undersigned, Are International Human Rights An Open letter to Twitter to restore Politwoops access to API September 2015 We, the undersigned, are international human rights and transparency groups based around the world. We are writing in opposition to Twitter’s recent decision to revoke the ability of the tool Politwoops and similar tools to utilize Twitter’s Application Programming Interface, or API. We believe Twitter’s decision holds grave consequences for free expression and transparency around the world. Background In 2010, the Netherlands-based Open State Foundation created the Politwoops tool to publish Tweets deleted by politicians. From then onwards, the Open State Foundation rolled out Politwoops with the help of individuals and organizations in 32 countries, including the Sunlight Foundation in the U.S. Twitter then revoked the ability of the Sunlight Foundation to use its API in May 2015 and it revoked the Open State Foundation’s access to the API on August 21. Transparency and due process To justify its decision, Twitter explained that, “No one user is more deserving of that ability [to delete a tweet] than another. Indeed, deleting a tweet is an expression of one’s voice.” Twitter’s reasoning conflates transparency and accountability with privacy. We agree that when users decide to delete tweets they are engaging in expression—but add that the public has a compelling interest in the expression of public officials. Recognizing this public interest, courts have long held that public officials do not receive the same treatment for privacy. Further, when public officials use Twitter to amplify their political views, they invite greater scrutiny of their expression. Journalists and civil society utilize tools like Politwoops to understand the views and commitments of the people these politicians represent—and the politician or candidate’s own intents and perspective. In this case, the citizen’s right to freedom of expression —which includes access to information—outweighs the official’s right to a retroactive edit. In terms of process, this decision involved minimal dialogue with the Open State Foundation and the Sunlight Foundation. There was no opportunity to appeal the decision, which impacted a widely-used, volunteer-run service. The action carried out by Twitter was arbitrary and cuts against the very principles of transparency that Politwoops was designed to confront. We recognize that the API license gives Twitter discretion to enforce its terms. However, Twitter should also take into account human rights when it exercises that discretion—and particularly the right of people to access to information where it serves the interest of public accountability and transparency in a democratic society. There are times when what is legal must be outweighed by what is right. Recommendations We note that Twitter has been a leader in transparency and free expression since its founding. The platform has helped foster numerous advances in journalism and in accountability. This makes the unilateral decision by Twitter so troubling and off-course. Accordingly, we urge you to: 2 ● immediately restore access for the Politwoops tool to the Twitter API in every country around the world; ● convene stakeholders to develop a forward-looking API policy, or other constructive solution, that allows civil society groups to effectively promote accountability and transparency for the public interest; ● make clear exceptions in the “Twitter Developer Agreement & Policy” for information shared in the public interest, such as for transparency or journalistic purposes; ● participate in multistakeholder organizations which facilitate meetings between civil society, investors, academics, and corporations on decisions impacting human rights. Signed, Access Alternatif Bilisim (Turkey) Art 34-bis (Italy) Asociacion por los Derechos Civiles (Argentina) Bits of Freedom (Netherlands) Blueprint for Free Speech (Australia) Derechos Digitales (Latin America) Electronic Frontier Foundation Free Press Human Rights Watch Jinbonet (Korea) OpenMedia International (Canada) Open State Foundation Paradigm Initiative (Nigeria) Pirate Party (Turkey) Red en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales (Mexico) Sunlight Foundation (U.S.) Vrijschrift (Netherlands) .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Party's Over?
    The Party’s Over? 63rd Annual International Conference 25 - 27 March 2013 City Hall, Cardiff, Wales Cover images: courtesy of www.visitcardiff.com Stay informed of Routledge Politics journal news and book highlights Explore Routledge Politics journals with your 14 days’ free access voucher, available at the Routledge stand throughout the conference. Sign up at the To discover future news and offers, Routledge stand and make sure you subscribe to the Politics we’ll enter you into our & International Relations Bulletin. exclusive prize draw to win a Kindle! explore.tandfonline.com/pair BIG_4664_PSA_A4 advert_final.indd 1 27/02/2013 11:38 Croeso i Gaerdydd! Welcome to Cardiff! Dear Conference delegate, I’d like to welcome you to this 63rd Conference of the Political Studies Association, held in Cardiff for the first time and hosted by the University of Cardiff. We are expecting over 600 delegates, representing over 80 different countries, to join us at Cardiff’s historic City Hall. The conference theme is ‘The Party’s Over?’; are the assumptions that have underpinned political life and political analysis sustainable? This subject will most certainly be explored during our Plenary Session ‘Leveson and the Future of Political Journalism’, a debate that has enormous ramifications for the future of UK politics. We will bring together some of the most passionate and eloquent voices on this topic; Chris Bryant MP, Trevor Kavanagh, Mick Hume and Professor Brian Cathcart. This year’s Government and Opposition- sponsored Leonard Schapiro lecture will be given by Professor Donatella Della Porta, who will consider the issue of political violence, the new editor of the American Political Science Review, Professor John Ishiyama, will discuss ‘The Future of Political Science’ and the First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones AM, will address attendees at the conference dinner.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Rights That Went Wrong in Turkey
    SPECIALGISWatch REPORT Internet rights that went wrong in Turkey AUGUST 2014 by Güneş Tavmen Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and Humanist Institute for Cooperation with Developing Countries (Hivos) Abstract his report presents an up-to-date assessment to freedom of expression online. The assessment Tof internet rights in Turkey, and has been is based on the La Rue framework1 and focuses prepared for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on internet regulation, internet access, blocking, 2014 which is being hosted by Turkey in Istanbul on surveillance, liability of internet intermediaries, 2–5 September 2014. The IGF is a space that strives criminalisation of legitimate expression, and for a democratic and inclusive internet and this cyber-attacks. The report concludes with report assesses the Turkish government’s respect recommendations for actions to promote and for international human rights standards in relation protect an open and free internet in Turkey. 1 The framework was developed by the Association for Progres- sive Communications and is based on the work of the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression Frank La Rue. It is available online at: http://www. apc.org/en/system/files/APC_FLRFramework_20140620.pdf 2 / Internet rights that went wrong in Turkey Table of Contents Background . 4 I . GEnERAL Legal FRAmework REGulatinG InternET COntenT . 6 II . Access to COntenT, BlockInG And FilterinG . 8 a. Google/YouTube. 8 b. Twitter . 9 c. Other Blocked Websites . .10 d. Filtering. 10 III . IntermEdIARy Liability . 12 IV . Protection OF ThE RIGhT to Privacy And Data Protection . 14 V . Legitimate ExPRESSIOn . 15 VI . CyBER-attackS .
    [Show full text]
  • Parties and Interest Associations Report Intra-Party Democracy, Association Competence (Business), Association Competence (Others) M O C
    Parties and Interest Associations Report Intra-party Democracy, Association Competence (Business), Association Competence (Others) m o c . e b o d a . k c Sustainable Governance o t s - e g Indicators 2018 e v © Sustainable Governance SGI Indicators SGI 2018 | 1 Parties and Interest Associations Indicator Intra-party Democracy Question How inclusive and open are the major parties in their internal decision-making processes? 41 OECD and EU countries are sorted according to their performance on a scale from 10 (best) to 1 (lowest). This scale is tied to four qualitative evaluation levels. 10-9 = The party allows all party members and supporters to participate in its decisions on the most important personnel and issues. Lists of candidates and agendas of issues are open. 8-6 = The party restricts decision-making to party members. In most cases, all party members have the opportunity to participate in decisions on the most important personnel and issues. Lists of candidates and agendas of issues are rather open. 5-3 = The party restricts decision-making to party members. In most cases, a number of elected delegates participate in decisions on the most important personnel and issues. Lists of candidates and agendas of issues are largely controlled by the party leadership. 2-1 = A number of party leaders participate in decisions on the most important personnel and issues. Lists of candidates and agendas of issues are fully controlled and drafted by the party leadership. United States Score 9 There are two major parties, the Democratic and Republican parties, operating at the local, state and federal levels in nearly all areas of the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges to European Unity: Options for Us Policymakers
    UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON THE HENRY M. JACKSON SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES CHALLENGES TO EUROPEAN UNITY: OPTIONS FOR U.S. POLICYMAKERS Task Force Report March 2017 Faculty Advisors Frederick Lorenz Philip Wall Evaluator Ambassador Kyle Randolph Scott Editors and Coordinators Meagan Araki Brian Crist Lisa Kwak Hayley McCord Anna Moretti Task Force Members Annie Chang Tamara Sánchez-Escudero Justin Collins Hailey Vandeventer Haoru Deng Alison Wendler Juan Gonzalez Michelle Williams Vivian Tzehsuan Liao Caitlyn Yao Troy Lindell Aidan Young Jannah McGrath Xiran Zhao Jessica Pickering Design and Formatting Team ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The members of the 2017 Challenges to European Unity Task Force would like to express our gratitude to the individuals and organizations that made this report possible. We are grateful to have had the opportunity to be a part of the first ever Task Force abroad. We would like to thank Sheryl Brandalik, Laura Tagliapietra, and Emma Smith of the University of Washington Rome Center for hosting and accommodating our program. We would like to extend our thanks to the many guest speakers that took the time to come to Rome and offer their expertise: Captain Matthias Altmeier Mr. Turker Ari Prof. Emeritus Jere Bachrac Admiral Alberto Cervone Justice Peter John Charleton LTC Jason Condrey Colonel Laurent Currit Turkish Ambassador Murat Salim Esenli The Embassy of the Republic of Turkey in Rome Dr. Sergey Golubok Colonel Jim Huber Lone Kjelgaard Dr. Jeff Larsen Fabrizio Luciolli Vira Ratsiborynska Colonel Peter Till In the Henry M. Jackson School, we would like to thank Dr. Wolfram Latsch for making this program happen, and travelling across the pond to provide help and mentorship.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Culture in Turkey [I] *
    * Digital culture in Turkey [I] * Introduction [II] * Turkey has a young population that adopts new communication technologies very rapidly. For this reason for the coming years an increase in cultural output by using communication technologies is expected. There may also be more contemporary artists who employ digital techniques in an interesting way in the near future. The E-culture field as it is understood in the Netherlands, however, is very small in Turkey. There is rarely a feeling of a digital creative scene, nor of a community of digital artists. Critique on communication technologies is mostly given by contemporary artists, civil society activists, and technology experts. If these actors can interact and deepen their knowledge, the e-cultural ecosystem in Turkey can grow stronger, and meaningful digital-physical hybrids will emerge. The current e-culture scene in Turkey is very small and needs to grow to accommodate and adsorb the big wave of students that will leave the many (communication) design departments in the coming five years. * Adoption rates [III] * Turkey has been a thorough consumer of communication technologies, first with the widespread adoption of cell phones in the ‘90s, then with the rapidly increasing use of social network services in the past 5 years. Today, Turkey has a 90% penetration rate in cell phone subscriptions and more than 20 million Facebook users, being the 4th after the US, UK, and Indonesia. The contemporary digital ecosystem is mediated by widespread use of internet-enabled smart phones, web based social network services, blog networks, P2P file sharing networks, and pirate DVD retailers.
    [Show full text]
  • Hukuksal Bağlamda Sosyal Medya Analizi Ve Kıyaslamalı Mevzuat Önerileri
    HUKUKSAL BAĞLAMDA SOSYAL MEDYA ANALİZİ VE KIYASLAMALI MEVZUAT ÖNERİLERİ LEGAL ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND COMPARATIVE LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION PROPOSALS Serhat KOÇ 110691013 İSTANBUL BİLGİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ HUKUK YÜKSEK LİSANS PROGRAMI (BİLİŞİM VE TEKNOLOJİ HUKUKU) Prof. Dr. Aslı TUNÇ 2013 ii Özet Bu çalışmada İnternetin günümüzün en önemli medyası ve iletişim mecrası olduğuna inancımızdan dolayı bu alanda yaşanan yeni gelişmeler bağlamında ihtiyaç duyulan hukuki bakışı sağlamak amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmada Türkiye’deki durumun bu açıdan analizi yapılmaya çalışılırken bu analizin etkili olması açısından farklı ülkelerdeki uygulamalarla, Avrupa Birliği Siber Suç Sözleşmesi ve Avrupa Birliği’nin ilgili yönergeleri ile karşılaştırma yapılması yöntemi tercih edilmiştir. Çalışmada özellikle internet medyasının içeriğinin yeni belirleyicisi olan sosyal ağlar ve diğer web 2.0 uygulamaları hukuki açıdan incelenmiştir. Dolayısıyla da, web 2.0 niteliğindeki “sosyal medya” olarak adlandırdığımız yeni dönem internet sitelerinin kullanılmasıyla yaşanabilecek muhtemel toplumsal ve ekonomik değişimlere değinildiği gibi, bu anlamda gelecekte kullanacağımız web 3.0 niteliğindeki akılı ve/veya yapay zekalı teknolojiler de ele alınmıştır. Türkiye’de henüz “Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kanunu” olmamasından kaynaklanan sorunlar ve ilgili mevcut mevzuat incelenmiştir. Sosyal medya siteleri vasıtasıyla da giderek artan dijital gözlem ve özel hayatın gizliliğinin ihlali konularında Türk mevzuatının durumu göz önünde bulundurularak kişisel veri koruması
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Establishment Radical Parties in 21 Century Europe
    Anti-Establishment Radical Parties in 21st Century Europe by Harry Nedelcu A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of PhD in Political Science Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario © Harry Nedelcu i Abstract The current crisis in Europe is one that superimposed itself over an already existing political crisis - one which, due to the cartelization of mainstream parties, Peter Mair (1995) famously referred to as a problem of democratic legitimacy in European political systems between those political parties that govern but no longer represent and those that claim to represent but do not govern. As established cartel-political parties have become complacent about their increasing disconnect with societal demands, the group of parties claiming to represent without governing has intensified its anti-elitist, anti-integrationist and anti-mainstream party message. Indeed many such parties, regardless of ideology (radical right but also radical-left), have surged during the past decade, including in the European Parliament elections of 2009 and especially 2014. The common features of these parties are: a) a radical non-centrist ideological stance (be it on the left or right, authoritarian or libertarian dimensions); b) a populist anti-establishment discourse, c) a commitment to representing specific societal classes; d) an aggressive discourse and behaviour towards political enemies, e) a commitment towards ‘restoring true democracy’ and f) a tendency to offer simplistic solutions to intricate societal issues. The question this dissertation asks is - what accounts for the rise of left-libertarian as well as right-wing authoritarian tribune parties within such a short period of time during the mid-2000s and early 2010s? I investigate this question through a comparative study of six EU member- states.
    [Show full text]
  • Major Political Parties Coverage for Data Collection 2021 Country Major
    Major political parties Coverage for data collection 2021 Country Major political parties EU Member States Christian Democratic and Flemish (Chrétiens-démocrates et flamands/Christen-Democratisch Belgium en Vlaams/Christlich-Demokratisch und Flämisch) Socialist Party (Parti Socialiste/Socialistische Partij/Sozialistische Partei) Forward (Vooruit) Open Flemish Liberals and Democrats (Open Vlaamse Liberalen en Democraten) Reformist Movement (Mouvement Réformateur) New Flemish Alliance (Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie) Ecolo Flemish Interest (Vlaams Belang) Workers' Party of Belgium (Partij van de Arbeid van België) Green Party (Groen) Bulgaria Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria (Grazhdani za evropeysko razvitie na Balgariya) Bulgarian Socialist Party (Bulgarska sotsialisticheska partiya) Movement for Rights and Freedoms (Dvizhenie za prava i svobodi) There is such people (Ima takav narod) Yes Bulgaria ! (Da Bulgaria!) Czech Republic Mayors and Independents STAN (Starostové a nezávislí) Czech Social Democratic Party (Ceská strana sociálne demokratická) ANO 2011 Okamura, SPD) Denmark Liberal Party (Venstre) Social Democrats (Socialdemokraterne/Socialdemokratiet) Danish People's Party (Dansk Folkeparti) Unity List-Red Green Alliance (Enhedslisten) Danish Social Liberal Party (Radikale Venstre) Socialist People's Party (Socialistisk Folkeparti) Conservative People's Party (Det Konservative Folkeparti) Germany Christian-Democratic Union of Germany (Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands) Christian Social Union in Bavaria (Christlich-Soziale
    [Show full text]
  • ESS6 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS6 - 2012 ed. 2.1 Albania 2 Belgium 3 Bulgaria 6 Cyprus 10 Czechia 11 Denmark 13 Estonia 14 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Israel 27 Italy 29 Kosovo 31 Lithuania 33 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 43 Russian Federation 45 Slovakia 47 Slovenia 48 Spain 49 Sweden 52 Switzerland 53 Ukraine 56 United Kingdom 57 Albania 1. Political parties Language used in data file: Albanian Year of last election: 2009 Official party names, English 1. Partia Socialiste e Shqipërisë (PS) - The Socialist Party of Albania - 40,85 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Partia Demokratike e Shqipërisë (PD) - The Democratic Party of Albania - 40,18 % election: 3. Lëvizja Socialiste për Integrim (LSI) - The Socialist Movement for Integration - 4,85 % 4. Partia Republikane e Shqipërisë (PR) - The Republican Party of Albania - 2,11 % 5. Partia Socialdemokrate e Shqipërisë (PSD) - The Social Democratic Party of Albania - 1,76 % 6. Partia Drejtësi, Integrim dhe Unitet (PDIU) - The Party for Justice, Integration and Unity - 0,95 % 7. Partia Bashkimi për të Drejtat e Njeriut (PBDNJ) - The Unity for Human Rights Party - 1,19 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Socialist Party of Albania (Albanian: Partia Socialiste e Shqipërisë), is a social- above democratic political party in Albania; it is the leading opposition party in Albania. It seated 66 MPs in the 2009 Albanian parliament (out of a total of 140). It achieved power in 1997 after a political crisis and governmental realignment. In the 2001 General Election it secured 73 seats in the Parliament, which enabled it to form the Government.
    [Show full text]
  • Years in Turkey Domestic and Foreign Policy
    AK PARTY YEARS IN TURKEY DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY Editors: Kılıç B. Kanat Burhanettin Duran AK PARTY YEARS IN TURKEY DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY AK PARTY YEARS IN TURKEY DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY EDITORS KILIÇ B. KANAT BURHANETTIN DURAN SETA SETA Publications 69 First Published in 2020 by SETA ISBN: 978-625-7040-73-0 © 2020 SET Vakfı İktisadi İşletmesi All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, without permission in writing from the publishers. Cover: Erkan Söğüt Printed in Turkey, İstanbul by Turkuvaz Haberleşme ve Yayıncılık A.Ş., September 2020 SETA Publications Nenehatun Caddesi No: 66 GOP Çankaya 06700 Ankara Turkey Tel:+90 312.551 21 00 | Fax :+90 312.551 21 90 www.setav.org | [email protected] CONTENTS Chapter 1: The Codes of the AK Party’s Ideological Transformation 7 Burhanettin Duran TRANSFORMATION IN DOMESTIC POLITICS DURING THE AK PARTY ERA Chapter 2: The AK Party’s Policy Towards Transformation of Political System in Turkey 43 Nebi Miş Chapter 3: The AK Party’s Kurdish Policy 85 Hüseyin Alptekin, Talha Köse Chapter 4: Changing Public Administration Reform Trajectories in Turkey: An Evaluation of the AK Party Era 115 Özer Köseoğlu, M. Zahid Sobacı IMPACT OF THE JULY 15TH COUP ATTEMPT TO TURKISH POLITICS Chapter 5: The July 15 Coup Attempt’s Effects on Turkish Politics 149 Nebi Miş Chapter 6: The Media’s Role in the Failure of the July 15 Coup Attempt 185 Serdar Karagöz, Pınar Kandemir Chapter 7: Evolution of Public Perceptions
    [Show full text]
  • Codebook 2019 Chapel Hill Expert Survey
    Codebook 2019 Chapel Hill Expert Survey May 2020 Version 2019.3 This dataset provides the data for the 2019 Chapel Hill Expert Survey on the positioning of 277 political parties on political ideology, European integration, and policy positions in 32 countries, including all EU member states.1 The survey also incorporates parties in Iceland, Norway, Switzer- land and Turkey. The survey was administered between February 2020 to May 2020 to 421 experts specializing in political parties and European integration in one of the countries considered.2 The Chapel Hill expert survey was conducted by Ryan Bakker, Liesbet Hooghe, Seth Jolly, Gary Marks, Jonathan Polk, Jan Rovny, Marco Steenbergen and Milada Anna Vachudova. The CHES team gratefully acknowledges research assistance from Stephanie Shady and Courtney Blackington. In addition, we acknowledge funding from the following organizations and grants. • The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s European Union Center of Excellence and the W.R. Kenan and Burton Craige Research Funds. • The European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (No. 649281). • The Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, EUI, Florence. • A public grant overseen by the French National Research Agency (ANR) as part of the “In- vestissements d’Avenir” program LIEPP (ANR-11-LABX-0091, ANR-11-IDEX-0005-02). • Swedish Research Council, grant number: 2016-01810. • The Maxwell School of Syracuse University’s Appleby-Mosher Fund. The 2019_CHES_dataset_means.dta Stata file contains average expert judgments per political party. The 2019_CHES_dataset_expert-level.dta dataset provides information at the level of the individual expert and allows researchers to aggregate expert scores and estimate standard deviations among expert judgments.
    [Show full text]