Social media in general, and Twitter in particular, brim with opinionated messages about diverse topics, from films and brands to services, products and politicians. Political tweets have been subject to a fair amount of research; it has been argued, for instance, that they can be used to forecast electoral results or that they can eventually render opinion polls pointless.

The editors here at The Plot are extraordinarily pleased to be writing you from Vienna, Austria (at the imposing former imperial palace of Schloss Schönbrunn, no less), where some of the world’s finest political scientists have converged this week for the Fifth Annual EPSA General Conference.

Is it possible that Bashar al-Assad is simply just crazy? Of course, it is always more likely than not that a political leader is in fact rational – even for the likes of Kim Jong-un, Muammar Gaddafi, and Saddam Hussein. But can we always be 100% certain that a given policymaker is rational? The odds that he or she is crazy may be low – like 5%, 1% or even a tenth of a percent – but they are not 0% for every leader.

I argue that holding countries up to the Swedish gold standard with respect to their work-family reconciliation policies is utopian, as such policies are unlikely to take root in other political soils. A more interesting question is what shapes the policy approaches that different countries find congenial.

Most people would answer “yes”. It is better for people’s well-being to prevent a problem than to deal with it once it arrives. And it saves public money. Governments now try to implement prevention strategies across a wide range of social policies, including health and mental health, crime, and early childhood development.

Ensuring America’s Health (Cambridge University Press, 2015) explains the incongruities of U.S. health care – how the system hosts some of the best medical practitioners and facilities in the world but also is extremely expensive, provides fragmented care, and distributes services poorly.

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has often adopted resolutions to authorise the American use of force. What do these resolutions communicate to the wider public overseas? Will they increase levels of support for US military action? A survey study [link to article] we have conducted in Japan finds not only that UNSC resolutions increase levels of support, but also that resolutions which failed due to a Chinese or Russian veto will still secure high levels of support for the use of force. If a draft resolution is withdrawn, however, or the US gives up on diplomacy, then public support falls. Foreign public opinion gives an ‘A’ for diplomatic effort when the US at least tries to pass a resolution; self-withdrawal is the worst case for the US.

Between 1970 and 2007, the average industrialized democracy experienced a decline in electoral turnout of almost 9 percentage points. To the extent that politicians pander to the demands of those who actually turn out, this trend risks redefining the relationship (or lack of it) between citizens and government.

Religion is intertwined with politics in every country in the world, though how this manifests is unique in each country. For example, in Germany – a state that still levies a religious tax for members of recognized religions – recent court cases addressed whether the government could regulate the ritual of circumcision for Jews and Muslims and whether it could ban the religious headwear of Muslim women. Much of the Muslim world is in a state of civil war over the role religion should play in government and which interpretation of Islam should be dominant.

Regions, cities, and other subnational policymakers can constrain or empower their national governments in international climate negotiations.