Evaluations of Candidates with Disabilities and Mental Health Challenges

Session Submission Type: Full Paper Panel

Abstract

Candidates who are visibly disabled are still few and far between. Meanwhile, in recent years an increasing number of elected representatives have opened up about mental health struggles, whether in relation to long-standing and diagnosed conditions or as a consequence of the stresses of political office. Reactions by the media, political competitors, and the public have been mixed: while politicians are sometimes applauded for normalizing mental health issues or going into politics ‘despite’ a disability, other times they face a backlash. A recent example is John Fetterman, whose competence was openly questioned when he first used assistive technology during his Senatorial campaign. But how do voters react to candidates with disabilities or (mental) health conditions? Although research on the effects of a range of candidate characteristics on voters’ perceptions and choices has expanded in recent decades, we still know little about the extent to which they hold negative stereotypes about candidates with disabilities or mental health problems or - to the contrary - appreciate their openness and value their skills.

The papers in this panel all reflect on this question, focusing on different candidate characteristics and using different methods. McDermott and Smith examine the effects of physical impairments and mental health issues on public opinion in the US in the context of Fetterman’s election, while Bernardi, Reher and Johns study how British citizens evaluate representatives who open up about different mental health conditions on social media. While both of these studies use survey experiments to study these questions, Friedman and Scotch draw on an extensive set of qualitative interviews with disabled candidates in the US to examine their experiences of ableism and barriers in the campaign and their strategies to counter them. Finally, Mattila and Reher use link data from a candidate survey with election data from the open-list PR system of Finland in order to examine whether candidates face a ‘disability penalty’ at the ballot box compared to their co-partisans and opponents. Thus, the panel brings together an international group of scholars using different methodological strategies and different geographical foci to address a common pertinent yet under-researched question.

Sub Unit

• General Paper and Panel Submissions

Individual Presentations

• The Politics of Ableism and Masculinity: Candidate Mental and Physical Illness and Voters' Evaluations - Monika L. McDermott, Fordham University; Jacob Forrest Harrison Smith, Fordham University

• Public Perceptions of Politicians with Mental Health Problems in the UK - Luca Bernardi, University of Liverpool; Robert Johns, University of Essex; Stefanie Reher, University of Strathclyde

• Stories from the Trenches: The Difference Disability Makes in the Campaign Experiences of Candidates with Disabilities - Sally Friedman, SUNY, Albany; Richard Scotch, University of Texas at Dallas

• Ableism at the Ballot Box? Electoral Support for Disabled Candidates in Finland’s Open-List PR System - Mikko Mattila, University of Helsinki; Stefanie Reher, University of Strathclyde

Chair

• Moritz Raykowski Max-Planck-Institute for the Study of Societies/ University of Cologne

Discussant

• Ekaterina Kolpinskaya University of Exeter