POSSIBLE STATES.Comparative politics simulationsHow to use this
Menu

← Back to your results / The Hearing

Authoritarianism

AuthoritarianismElectoral competition

Authoritarianism, unequal electoral competition & comparative evidence

The Hearing

Who holds the advantage, and what is your evidence?

Investigate incumbent advantages and opposition opportunities through case files from Russia, Malaysia, Malawi and Serbia. Open two files, build an explanation from sources and defend it at a hearing. Trace how an actor’s action changes another actor’s options, weigh a complication and a rival, and compare what makes electoral competition unequal or opens space for a challenge.

How it runsSolo simulation
Time to plan50–60 min
What you produceSource-based explanation, two hearing decisions, a competing account and evidence request, and a second-case comparison; full record and compact submission summary
Just exploringFor class

Both routes keep the same evidence and analytical work. Just exploring lets you save an unfinished draft at any point. A completed hearing requires the full explanation, challenges and comparison in either route. For class uses typed responses. Switch inside without losing work; your instructor sets the submission format.

For class: download your report when you finish, then submit it through your course website. Downloading does not submit it.

This activity supports saving on this device. Check its save status before closing, and download a progress backup before changing browsers or devices.

Saving & submission →
Embed this activity

Bring the activity into your course.

Paste this snippet into an LMS or website HTML editor that supports iframes. The activity stays hosted by Possible States; its source code is not included.

Keep the full-tab link included below the frame. Some LMSs and browsers restrict embedded storage, downloads or printing. Students should download a backup before changing views; opening a new tab does not transfer an in-memory record.

Embedding and free-use permissions →
The Hearing. Created by Yoav Duman. Three paper records lie across a hearing table, connected by a red thread to layered civic architecture and public galleries.

What you can explore

  • Distinguish a documented event from an inference about its effect on political competition.
  • Connect an actor, an action and a changed option using two supporting cards and a complication.
  • Answer source-use challenges, identify a rival at an uncertain link, and request evidence that could distinguish the accounts.
  • Compare two dated case windows and state a source limit relevant to the claim.

YOUR HEARING FIELD KIT

Keep the case open.

Take the complete evidence and reasoning record into class, or explore independently and save a draft.

Save a PDF or use the grading summary for Canvas Text Entry, as assigned. The .json file is a progress backup. Browser saves are separate on each website; use the backup to move work. Exporting does not submit it.

What the model leaves open

Historical outcomes are fixed. The supplied windows cover Russia in early 2024, Malaysia in 2013/2018, Malawi in 2019/2020 and Serbia in 2023–February 2024; they do not establish a country ranking or a predetermined national regime classification. The hearing frame and cover art are conceptual. Work is saved in the browser when storage is available; JSON backup supports resumption. No external AI, account or login is required. Finishing does not submit work or generate a grade.

AFTERWARD, THINK ABOUT

Whose option changed, through which action, and which record supports that link?

Teaching this activity Debrief, assessment & assignment draft

Bring it back to the room

  • Whose option changed, through which action, and which record supports that link?
  • What does the complication weaken, and what remains supported?
  • Did a hearing challenge change your claim, your evidence or the scope of your explanation?
  • What observation would distinguish the rival accounts, and what can the second case add?

What to assess

A person reviews the actor–action–option explanation, support and complication, source-use decisions, claim-specific limit, rival and distinguishing evidence, and comparison. The main explanation aims for 60–85 words (50–120 accepted); the comparison requires 30–45. Completed records in either route use the same analysis checks. Inclusion checks and word bands do not grade reasoning. PDF printing, readable HTML and full-copy records are available alongside a compact submission summary with a manual-copy fallback.

Read the complete teaching guide →

Syllabus description, rubric & printable companion →

Prepare an assignment to share.

Edit this text, then copy it into Canvas or your course website. These edits stay in this tab.

Syllabus description & discussion prompts
Syllabus description
Investigate incumbent advantages and opposition opportunities through case files from Russia, Malaysia, Malawi and Serbia. Open two files, build an explanation from sources and defend it at a hearing. Trace how an actor’s action changes another actor’s options, weigh a complication and a rival, and compare what makes electoral competition unequal or opens space for a challenge. Students produce source-based explanation, two hearing decisions, a competing account and evidence request, and a second-case comparison; full record and compact submission summary.
Questions for a discussion board or class debrief
  1. Whose option changed, through which action, and which record supports that link?
  2. What does the complication weaken, and what remains supported?
  3. Did a hearing challenge change your claim, your evidence or the scope of your explanation?
  4. What observation would distinguish the rival accounts, and what can the second case add?
Open printable teaching companion →