Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS - US VOTING BEHAVIOUR (TERMINOLOGY (Two basic…
GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS - US VOTING BEHAVIOUR
TERMINOLOGY
Two basic models of voting behaviour to analyse the factors influencing voters
Voter Profile
A person's background (gender, age, religion, ethnicity etc.) largely explains why they vote for a particular candidate or party. There is a strong sense of partisan alignment and party identification. The key to winning elections therefore with this analysis is to ensure your natural supporters bother to come out and vote
Recency factors
sees voters as more volatile, willing to change allegiance from election to election depending on factors such as the issues, the personality of the candidates and campaign advertising. This approach takes into account trends such as partisan de-alignment. According to this analysis the way to electoral success is the importance of the campaign and having attractive policies to win over wavering voters
party identification - a strong psychological/emotional attachment to parties gained through political socialisation which leads to habit voting regardless of candidates and issues. Such party loyalty is deep rooted and resistant to change, leading to predictable and stable voting. Such partisanship can be weak or strong and may change in response to recent events such as white southern voters in the 1960's
New Deal Coalition - voting groups attracted to the Democrats by the 1930's New Deal reforms, alongside the white conservative voters in the 'solid' South whose alignment was a legacy of the Civil war - new coalition of liberal groups and ethnic minorities in the North supporting the same party as the extremely Conservative South collapsed when the Democrats adopted more liberal and civil rights platforms in the 1960s
Gender gap - refers to the different voting patterns of men and women found in all modern elections, although the gap narrows or widens at each election as voters respond to different candidates and issues - women voters are more likely to vote democrat and men Republican - links to the ideologies and policies of both parties being more or less attractive to the different genders
swing voters - labelled floating in the UK and independent in the USA - swing voters are de-aligned and lack strong party identification and their votes cannot be predicted or taken for granted - are targeted in campaigns and can be crucial in deciding elections especially in swing states - approximately 30% of voters describe themselves as independent although most 'lean' towards one party or another
De-alignment - term refers to the lack or loss of party identification so it links with the concept of independent swing voters - de-aligned voters lack or lose partisan loyalty gained through socialisation into party identification from an early age - de-alignment links with volatility, split-ticket voting and higher abstention as well as candidate and issue voting, younger voters are more de-aligned than older voters
split-ticket voting - federalism and the separation of powers enable voters to vote for different parties on the same ballot in the same election on the same day - voters who vote for different parties for whatever reason (candidates/issues) are voting a split ticket rather than a straight party ticket and can be seen by examining voting statistics in states showing different levels of support for different candidates from the same party
Democratic overload - federalism and the separation of powers mean that there are numerous elections at different levels of government and for different offices as well as primaries and direct democracy
differential abstention - voters vote or abstain differently at each election which may be won or lost according to which voters turn out to vote and which do not - large numbers of young and minority voters voted for Obama in 2008 but failed to vote in the 2010 mid-term elections while many Republican voters who abstained in 2008 voted in the 2010 mid-terms giving the Republican Party success
PARTISAN ALIGNMENT
party identification model stresses the importance of partisanship in explaining voter behaviour - through long term factors such as socioeconomic status, individuals develop strong attachments to parties and align with those parties, not changing their vote from election to election - these voters are the core voters or the base of the parties - levels of partisanship fluctuate, but high levels lead to stable, fairly predictable patterns of voting behaviour
Parties and their core voters
the two parties by necessity have to attract the support of diverse groups of voters who perceive the party as representing their interests and reflecting their values - relates to the history, ideology and policies of each party as well as to voter profile
Democratic Party
perceived as the more liberal part, associated with the less affluent and with minorities, and offering interventionist policies to help them. Dates back to the days of New Deal Coalition in 1930's. Associated with more progressive positions on issues and policies and therefore attracts more intellectual and liberal voters to its voting coalition
Republican Party
Perceived as the more conservative party, associated with richer, WASP America with policies favouring business, free markets and fiscal and social conservatism, and attracting more wealthy, white, rural and suburban voters to its voting coalition
Social and Economic factors influencing voter choice
Income
social class factor relatively insignificant in US political culture is a correlation between income levels and voting behaviour with more affluent voters tending to vote Republican and the less affluent tending to support the Democrats
also occupational differences in voting e.g. unionised car workers more likely to vote Democrat than business executives
relates in part to the economic policies of the two parties - 2012 Obama secured 63% of the vote of those earning under $30 000 p/a
Race and ethnicity
USA has always been a melting pot of immigrant groups with different cultural identities and traditions - diversity is reflected in voting patterns according to race
The black vote
african-americans have been the most overwhelmingly solid group of Democrat voters since the 1930's - at this time the black vote had gone mainly to the Republicans since the days of Abraham Lincoln realigned to support the Democrats in response to the policies of Franklin Roosevelt
usually more than 90% of black voters vote Democrat at each election - 93% in 2012
is heavily concentrated in certain states and districts and in multi-ethnic cities such as Washington DC and Chicago
Although largely static in terms of overall growth as a proportion of the electorate the growth in the black vote in Ohio from 11% in 2008 to 15% in 2012 aided Obama's victory in this key swing state the second time around
why is the black vote so heavily democratic?
New Deal and Great Society legacy of activist government and welfare programmes benefiting poorer groups of society
Democrat party's support for the Civil Rights Movement and civil rights legislation
The Democrats support for and extension of affirmative action porgrammes
Democratic black role models including members of Congress, governors, mayors and the first black president
the Republican Party's failure to support or represent black interests and its image as the white party supported by white voters
problem for black voters = republican party ignores them because it cannot win their vote and Democratic party takes them for granted because it can
republicans have tried to attract the votes of the black middle class through economic and socially conservative policies, appealing to richer or religious black voters but iwth little success - but the only African-American senator in the 2012-14 Congress is a Republican Tim Scott while others served in executive posts under George W Bush including secretary of state Condoleezza rice
The hispanic vote
regarded as the sleeping giant of US politics as it comprises a growing proportion of the electorate - Just under 14 million Hispanics were eligible to vote in 2012 an increase of 18% on 2008
Hispanic voters are concentrated in several key districts and states with large Electoral College votes (e.g. Florida) and so are politically significant with their votes sought by both parties - most are Spanish speaking and over 70% are Roman Catholic which has led to some vote switching from the Democrats to the Republicans over issues such as abortion
The majority still vote Democrat for social rather than religious reasons and in 2012 Obama won 71% of the Hispanic vote up from 67% from 2008 - Republican support for tighter immigration controls and tougher attitude towards illegal immigrants are factors that helps explain the Democrat lead among Hispanic voters
The growth in Florida's Hispanic electorate 17% in 2012 up from 14% in 2008 undoubtedly helped Obama in this key swing state
Turnout among Hispanics is historically lower than for other ethnic groups so while the challange for the Republicans is to get them to switch their allegiance the democrats focus on trying to get them to turn out and vote
the asian vote
asian population represents a growing group of voters (currently 3%) and have their origins in a number of countries - in the 2012 election they voted 73% Democrat and 23% Republican
Religion
USA is unusual in that religious identity has strongly influenced voting behaviour
WASP vote was always strongly Republican because the early white settlers were Protestant
Catholic voters (of Italian and Irish descent as well as Hispanic) have historically identified with the Democrat party as minorities - has declined in recent times - in part due to controversies over issues such as gay marriage and abortion - in 2012 Obama only narrowly won this group - 50% to 48% down 4% from 2008
Jewish voters are traditionally Democrat because of their minority status and liberal views - are usually active in support of pro-Israel candidates and are a key voting bloc in New York and Florida - interestingly Obama's support among them fell considerably between 2008 and 2012 from 78% to 69% largely because of his perceived lack of unequivocal support for Israel
christian fundamentalist voters are the cultural and social conservatives of US politics and strongly Republican - siding with religion in the so-called 'Culture Wars' against secular values - Romney improved his support among this group in 2012 securing a 78% share of their vote
regular churchgoers are more likely to vote republican while secular voters are more likely to vote Democrat - in 2012 Obama won 62% of the vote among those who never attend religious services
Gender
in elections the republican Party receives a majority of votes from men and the Democratic party a majority of votes from women
recognition of the significance of the female vote was reflected in the attention given to 'security mom's in 2004 - a women with children who are particularly concerned about terrorism and security issues and 'hockey moms' in 2008 - a mother who devotes a great deal of time and effort to supporting her children's participation in ice hockey. - as important democraphic groups of voters
the gender gap increased in 2012 when 55% of women voted for Obama but 52% of men backed Romney
How can the gender gap be explained?
women voters are more likely to vote democrat because they ...
are more 'pro-choice' on abortion, more pro-gun control and anti-death penalty
place more emphasis on health, education and welfare issues
dislike much Republican social conservatism and hawkish views on foreign policy and place less emphasis on lower taxes than men
are more environmentally aware wanting more regulation
Age
evidence is mixed but there is little to show that age is a significant independent variable affecting voting behaviour
older voters are more likely to have a party identification and thus more likely to vote - explains the emphasis both parties place on the 'grey vote'
voters aged 65+ backed Romney by a margin of 56% to 44% in 2012
younger voters are more de-aligned and volatile and are not reliable voters despite 'Rock the Vote' campaigns
in 2012 Obama won the votes of 60% of the 18-29 year old voters down from 66% in 2008
Region
where a voter lives in the USA can be an important influence on their voting - this relates to the different social and economic characteristics of the states and areas within them
relates to the different social and economic characteristics of the states and areas within them
the southern states were solidly Democratic until the 1960s and have been solidly Republican since then
Voters in the rust belt, the industrial states, the coastal states and the cities ('blue america') are more likely to vote Democrat
voters in the bible belt, the mountain states and the rural and suburban areas within them are more likely to vote Republican ('red america')
PARTISAN DE-ALIGNMENT
alternative model of voting behaviour stresses the increasing importance of short-term factors in explaining voting behaviour - in recent times this has been put down largely to increased de-alignment
consequences include - more volatility, greater likelihood of ticket-splitting and an increased number of swing voters
means that parties must work harder to win votes, especially independents as they can no longer rely on large numbers of core, aligned voters to always turn out and vote for them
however there are debates about the extent of de-alignment in the USA - paradoxically ticket-splitting has declined in recent elections and there are fewer 'swing states' or competitive House districts
Short-term (recency) factors influencing voting
Candidate voting
de-aligned voters may vote differently in different elections because their voting is more influenced by the candidates (their personality, image, experience) than by their party allegiance
particularly the case in the age of media-dominated politics focusing on candidate-centred campaigns
Reagan in the 1980's was feted as the 'great communicator' McCain may have been seen as too old and 'grumpy' in 2008 and Obama as the more impressive candidate - in 2012 Romney did himself no favours by committing several gaffes caught on camera such as implying he did not care about the 47% of the population he claimed were dependent on government support
Issue Voting
De-aligned voters are also more likely to vote for candidates because of their views on specific issues particularly in the age of single-issue politics with economic issues usually being the most significant
however election issues change and in 2004 it was said not to be 'the economy, stupid' (as in Clinton's 1992 campaign) but moral values that were uppermost when 'wedge issues' such as abortion and gay marriage were used to energise the base of the Republican party to vote
by 2012 in the wake of the financial crisis and bank bail-outs, the economy was again centre stage with 59% of voters saying it was the most important issue compared to just 5% for foreign policy - was also a chance to deliver a verdict on Obama's first term - some commentators summed up his main achievements as 'Bin Laden's dead and General Motors is alive''
Performance Voting
according to rational choice theories of voting behaviour, voters may vote on the performance or record of an incumbent or a future president
retrospective voting suggests voters make judgements on past performance and vote against politicians with a poor performance in office, as in the case of Bush senior in 1992 after recession, or they make a judgement on prospective performance as with Obama in 2008 - when voters are satisfied with his performance, the incumbent may be elected to a second term as were Clinton in 1996 (economic boom) and George W Bush in 2004 (war president) - arguably Obama was re-elected in 2012 not so much because voters were satisfied with the record of his first term, but because of the flaws of his opponent
The October Surprise
term given to an unexpected event close to election day where the side disadvantaged by it does not have time to respond properly
2008 it was the revelation that Obama had a half-aunt living in the US as an illegal immigrant
2012 it was Hurricane Sandy to which the president was felt to have responded effectively, even earning praise from the high-profile Republican governor of New Jersey Chris Christie - by dominating the headlines for several days it took the momentum out of Romeny's campaign and showed Obama in a positive presidential light
rarely changes the final result but can make life easier or harder respectively for the candidates in the final days of campaigning
Split-ticket voting
because of the separation of powers and federalism US voters face a choice from a range of candidates, for several offices, on the same ballot paper on the same the day
voters can vote the 'straight ticket' by voting for the same party for each office
voters who vote for candidates for office from different parties on the same ballot paper at the same election are 'splitting their ticket'
simplest reason why voters do this (although it may seem irrational) is because they can - other reasons include voter de-alignment and the influence of different candidates and issues, so voters are making complex choices by voting for different parties for different reasons
split-ticket voting was high in the 1970s and 1980s and in 1984 55% of Democratic identifiers voted for Reagan but he was faced with a Democrat majority in the House - however split-ticket voting has fluctuated and declined overall in recent elections
Consequences of split-ticket voting
can lead to divided government in Washington and the much-criticised legislative 'gridlock' when laws and politics are difficult to get passed
arguably it offers a better deal for voters who may get the best of both worlds through their votes e.g. voting for a Republican president can mean low taxes but strong defence and voting for a Democrat member of congress can mean higher spending on welfare
helps to prevent an 'elective dictatorship' since the voters' choices result in more effective checks and balances
ABSTENTION
for the self-declared beacon of democracy, the US has one of the lowest turnouts for elections in the Western world
reached its lowest point in 1996 when the turnout was barely over 50% of eligible voters (not all eligible voters choose to register to vote) though it has increased in subsequent elections
rose in 2008 to just under 62% before dropping back to around 58% in 2012
turnout fell in all but two states in 2012 (Iowa and Louisiana)
turnout in some primaries can be even lower - only 5% of eligible voters in Virginia's Republican primary in March 2012 bothered to turn out to vote
How can high abstention be explained?
voter registration
in most states voters have to make some effort to get registered but it is now easier as the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) 2002 allows same-day registration and early voting in many states
there are registration drives to mobilise the vote and there are no legal barriers to voting (except for felony in some states) following civil rights amendments in the 1960s - despite this many voters fail to register
the registration process therefore helps explain why fewer eligible Americans might choose to register to vote (it takes a bit of effort) but does not really explain why many who registered still do not turn out and exercise their democratic and constitutional right to choose their leaders
Democratic overload and voter fatigue
huge number of elections for a wide range of posts from the president down to local civic officials and the resulting sense of permanent campaigning cause voters to switch off
media-dominated campaigns
the politics of sound bites, photo opportunities and negative advertising with candidates spending millions of dollars to say little about real issues can alienate voters
the electoral system/lack of choice
has been argued that the first-past-the-post electoral system discourages third party and independent candidates, leaving voters with little real choice
as both parties need to appeal to the centre the choice is often seen as between bland and blander
Electoral college system increases this sense of the 'wasted vote' syndrome
voters in 'safe' states might see little point in voting as their vote will not have any effect on the overall result
decline in partisanship
voters with strong party identification use their vote while those without tend not to - the growth of party de-alignment helps explain declining turnout since the 1960's
voter apathy and cynicism
some voters feel that voting does not make any different to their lives and that remote, lobbyist-dominated government in Washington is not responsive to their views - cynicism has been increased by dissatisfaction with presidential performance and political scandals
hapathy
the idea that voters are so content that they do not need to vote is known as 'hapathy' - in this view it is satisfaction with the system, not alienation from it that reduces turnout - however can hardly be said to apply to the 2012 election when the majority of voters identified the economy as the most important issue facing America
Differential abstention
although turnout is low in the US for reason identified must be aware that some groups are more likely to vote than others and may not vote in every election - known as differential abstention
low-income, less-educated, younger and Hispanic voters are more likely to abstain which damages the Democrat's prospects
abstention is lower among high-income, elderly, educated, suburban white voters which helps the Republicans
turnout is lower in the mid-terms where the incumbency may be a strong factor influencing outcomes and is even lower for primary elections
turnout can rise if
the state is a 'battleground' state - turnout was high in North Carolina in 2012 at over 64% by contrast the lowest turnout was 44% in Hawaii a strongly 'blue state'
there are other high profile issues or election contests on the ballot too - the highest turnout of any state in 2012 was Minnesota which also had an initiative measure to ban gay marriage on the ballot