Semra Sevi
@semrasevi
Followers
7K
Following
8K
Media
56
Statuses
551
Assistant Professor of Political Science @UofT
Joined September 2016
My parents sent me this mug with the abstract of my first solo publication. Such a cool gift! #phdlife #AcademicTwitter @ElectoralStdies
167
724
11K
Excited to share our new paper published in PNAS (joint with @SemraSevi and Don Green)! AI can enhance political knowledge and provide balanced information about politics with proper guardrails and vetted sources (e.g., party platforms). https://t.co/xKA0cFyATW
2
21
47
Two inspiring days at the Nuffield Politics of AI workshop! This was social science at its best, thanks to all involved! @benwansell @jburnmurdoch @NuffieldCollege
1
5
14
Quite a 24 hours in Canadian Politics, two Conservatives out (one to the Liberals, one gone altogether), a new Budget on the table, and my debut on @PnPCBC! Nothing beats watching your research come to life. Full interview: https://t.co/Cqq2aQeClp
@UofT_PolSci #cdnpoli
0
2
4
My study with @ProfPolitiqueUS & @ablais_ of every election since 1867 shows party switchers in Canada once thrived, but now they face steep losses. Here is a summary of our results: https://t.co/B9FR6VaPzs
@IRPP @UofT_PolSci #cdnpoli
BREAKING: Conservative MP @CdEntremontMP has resigned from the CPC caucus. Conservative House Leader @AndrewScheer reacts. "He's going to have to explain to all the people that he looked in the eye, took their donations, put signs on their lawns, and then explain why he
2
5
11
These cozy knitted stockings are perfect for keeping your feet warm on chilly winter nights. Whether you’re lounging around the house, watching TV, or wearing slippers or shoes, they add comfort and style to your everyday moments.
0
130
1K
In 2009 my job market paper was rejected by APSR. My findings were described as not “sufficiently interesting for a general journal” 17 years later, it’s still not published. Which makes sense because it wasn’t very good and the reviewers were 100% correct.
In 1992 Peter Ratcliffe received this rejection letter from Nature. His findings were not "a sufficient advance in our understanding". 27 years later he won the Nobel Prize for the same discovery. Don't lose faith in the things you believe in.
16
33
711
🚨NEW STUDY: Do Americans support a woman president? Our list experiment during the 2024 election, when @KamalaHarris was on the ballot, reveals hidden bias, and it's more widespread than you'd expect. https://t.co/fANLrCzmwn
@UofT_PolSci
4
15
89
An LLM chatbot with RAG on party platforms can increase people's knowledge on policy stances but with weaker downstream effects, finds @YamilRVelez Green & @semrasevi, https://t.co/dMm1gVwvtm
0
3
14
We thank all the Members of Parliament who spoke with us, including the Hon. @TonyclementCPC, Hon. @beynate, Mr. @AMacGregor4CML, Hon. @ThomasMulcair, Hon. @BobRae48, and the Office of Private Members’ Business at the House of Commons. 🙏 @HoCChamber @OurCommons
0
0
2
Why is reciprocity so weak in 🇨🇦? Strong party discipline limits side deals even in the more flexible world of PMBs. Using a rare real-world lottery we show: Legislative support often reflects shared values, not traded favours. Not all politics is transactional.
3
0
4
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.
1
0
4
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.
1
0
2
We tested two things: 🔁 Do MPs second each other within the same parliament? 🔄 Do they return favors across different parliaments? The results?
1
0
2
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.
1
0
2
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
1
0
2
🚨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.👇 https://t.co/WEgCt41oXd
@PSRMJournal @UofT_PolSci
1
6
39
Excited to share a new working paper with @SemraSevi and Don Green. We built a chatbot-based Voting Aid Application (VAA) using generative AI to help young voters in the US learn where parties stand on the issues they care most about. Does it work? Yes and no... Let’s dive in.
3
21
94
Stay ready for outages with Powerwall and Storm Watch during extreme weather.
0
162
1K
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: https://t.co/fSwCcIRkGW
@UofT_PolSci @CJPS_RCSP @spaikin @acoyne @davidakin
cambridge.org
The Incumbency Advantage in Canadian Elections - Volume 58 Issue 2
1
6
9
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.
1
0
2
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.
1
0
3
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.
1
0
1
NintendoSwitch 《Sumikkogurashi Create a Wonderful Sumikko Island!》 If you love it, Like and Repost! 👇Click here for Nintendo eshop
1
9
298