2 Discussions

chapter_10.pdf

Home >Government homework help >2 Discussions

10 Elections and Public Opinion

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

• Describe the purpose and functions of election in the United States • Analyze the relationship among elections, participation, and the democratic process • Analyze the reasons why people participate and do not participate in the political process • Distinguish between types of elections and analyze the circumstances that make for a realign- ing election

• Analyze the role of public opinion in elections • Define the critical elements of public opinion and explain how we measure it • Analyze the forces that shape public opinion • Analyze the role of the press in shaping public opinion

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 291 4/27/12 2:55 PM

CHAPTER 10Introduction

In the 1994 midterm election, the Democrats lost control of the U.S. House of Representa-tives to the Republicans for the first time in 40 years. Republicans picked up 54 seats in the House; they also took control of the U.S. Senate, as well as many state governorships. Pundits viewed this as a defeat for President Clinton and were quick to say that the elec- tion represented a rejection of his efforts to bring about healthcare reform. Others claimed it was due to the inability of the Democratically controlled Congress to accomplish any- thing substantive, including healthcare reform. Still others interpreted the change as a sign that the people had changed their party loyalties. Not only were they voting for Republi- can Party candidates, but they were increasingly identifying themselves as Republicans.

The 1994 election was indeed a significant one. Republicans would control the House of Representatives until the 2006 midterm election, and they would control the Senate until 2001. Republicans claimed that the American people rejected the Democrats because of the Republican Party platform, which they called the “Contract with America” (Figure 10.1). However, additional research revealed that most voters had not even heard of the Contract with America, so something else was going on. The question was what?

In this chapter, we explore this and other elections in the context of their time and what they tell us about the contemporary American population. We also examine the role that elections generally play in the American political process. Elections are more than a matter of picking individuals to govern. They tell us about what we as a people think is impor- tant, and they say something about our political values as a nation. Through elections we participate in the democratic process and hold public officials in constitutional government accountable. But the shifting winds of public opinion can also lead to unpredictable results.

1994 Contract with America

First: Require all laws that apply to the rest of the country to also apply equally to the Congress;

Second: Select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;

Third: Cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;

Fourth: Limit the terms of all committee chairs;

Fifth: Ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;

Sixth: Require committee meetings to be open to the public;

Seventh: Require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;

Eighth: Guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

Figure 10.1: A Republican Party platform for election

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 292 4/27/12 2:55 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.1 Purpose of Elections

10.1 Purpose of Elections We use elections to choose our leaders, and voting—the most basic form of political par- ticipation—is assumed to be a basic right in a democracy. However, elections are impor- tant for other reasons as well. In the United States, elections serve three basic functions:

1. They provide an essential basis for democratic expression.

2. They provide for a peaceful transfer of power.

3. They allow us, as a political community, to offer our tacit acceptance of the American constitu- tional tradition. By voting we reaffirm our commitment to the social contract that the Constitution represents.

Democratic Expression

We express ourselves in a democracy by casting votes at the ballot box (or, increasingly, by mail). Casting a vote allows us to express our preferences, which is an extension of our human agency. When we vote for candidates who currently hold office, we affirm our support, and when we vote against them we register our opposition.

We achieve the greatest state of democratic expression when we are able to control all the circumstances that affect our lives. But in a private market economy, where managers and corporate executives make most of the decisions that impact the jobs of their employees, we do not usually have such control. In the political world we control our circumstances by electing the government that will make decisions on our behalf. Elections are the vehi- cles by which we achieve voice.

Peaceful Transfer of Power

As Americans we take a peaceful transfer of power for granted, but this is actually one of the unique features of our American legacy. When the Framers of the Constitution con- structed the American political system, they wanted to escape the history of governments being violently overthrown by other governments. A truly peaceful transfer of power— that is, using the ballot box rather than barrel of a gun—represents a serious break from this pattern.

Through elections American voters offer their tacit accep- tance of the constitutional tradition. Elections also provide for the peaceful transfer of power, and are the basis of dem- ocratic expression.

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 293 4/27/12 2:56 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.2 Public Participation

That Americans did not adopt the feudalistic class structure of the old world, whereby the only path to upward socioeconomic mobility was through violent revolution, is an impor- tant component of American exceptionalism. Among the precedents that George Wash- ington set as the first president was his personal choice not to seek more than two terms in office. (Until passage of the Twenty-Second Amendment in 1951, the Constitution did not expressly prohibit, or even imply, that a president could not serve more than two terms.) His action paved the way for the election of his replacement and the tradition of peaceful transfer of power in the United States. Because Americans can trust that power will be peacefully transferred, we do not have to resort to violence to change the government.

Tacit Acceptance of American Constitutional Tradition

The U.S. Constitution is in many respects a social contract between government and the people, but it was entered into by a generation of people from whom we are far removed. Thomas Jefferson thought it would be a good idea if every generation held a constitu- tional convention so that each could choose the governing arrangements that would best meet its needs. But because we choose our government through periodic elections, we do not really need to convene new constitutional conventions. Elections enable us to offer our tacit consent to the basic social contract of the Constitution. By freely participating in the political process through elections, we agree to the political arrangements that govern us. Elections, then, in a very broad sense fulfill a validation function.

Of course, the validation function rests on the same assumptions of trust that the peaceful transfer of power does. Only because we trust that the government in power will respect the wishes of the people can elections represent this tacit acceptance. After all, if we par- ticipate in the political process by voting, rather than seek to overthrow it through rioting and rebellion, it must follow that we are basically happy and accept the legitimacy of the system. But if it can no longer govern effectively, our government loses its legitimacy.

10.2 Public Participation Although a majority of the country may be eligible to vote, not everyone does. On one level, because elections are critical to democracy, many regard voting as a civic obligation, similar to jury duty. But on another level, freedom to participate in the democratic process also means the freedom not to participate.

Unlike some other democratic societies, where citizens may be fined if they fail to vote, the United States does not mandate participation in elections. We also have among the lowest rates of voter participation among western democracies. This begs the question, if a group of people chooses not to vote and government then pursues policies that this group does not like, do these people have a reasonable basis to complain?

In 1980, Ronald Reagan ran on a platform of cutting taxes, increasing military spending and cutting social programs. After winning the election, he was able to push through much of his agenda even in a Democratically controlled Congress. Part of that agenda

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 294 4/27/12 2:56 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.2 Public Participation

was a series of tightened eligi- bility requirements for public assistance, which disqualified many poor people, a group that is commonly less inclined to participate in elections. A close look at the 1980 election results showed that Reagan captured only 50.75 percent of the popular vote, with Jimmy Carter taking 41.01 percent of the popular vote and Independent John Ander- son taking 6.61 percent. Nev- ertheless, Reagan won in the Electoral College by 489–49, which was a landslide. Rea- gan’s platform made it clear that his policies would not

favor the poor. Had the poor actually voted in that election, the outcome of the election, and later public policies, might have been different.

Are politicians obligated to represent all the people or only those who vote? In theory, all citizens have a legitimate claim to the representation of elected officials. In reality, how- ever, politicians tend to represent only those who vote. Of course, the larger question is what it means to talk about the importance of voting if people fail to exercise this basic right. Another issue is that given the long-fought battle for civil rights, of which voting was most prominent, if large segments of the population opt not to vote, what was the point of fighting for the right in the first place?

Who Votes?

Any American citizen over the age of 18 is eligible to vote, but the “typical voter” usually falls into a particular set of demographic categories. For example, various studies have shown that socioeconomic status is a key determinant of who votes. Those with higher socioeconomic status, i.e., those with more education and money, are more likely to vote than those with lower socioeconomic status, i.e., those who are poor and less educated. Table 10.1 shows the degree to which voter turnout increases with socioeconomic status.

As the table shows, voter turnout generally declined between 1964 and 1988, but it still increased considerably among those who were wealthier and more educated. In 1988 there was a 34.2 percentage point difference in voter turnout between the top and bottom of the income distribution. Those in white-collar occupations were 24 percent more likely to vote than those in blue-collar occupations. Those who received an education beyond college, whether it was graduate or professional school, were 45.5 percent more likely to vote than those without a high school education. This suggests that income inequality is a factor in nonvoting and that more people would vote if incomes were more equal.

In 1980 Ronald Reagan ran on a platform of cutting taxes, increasing military spending and cutting social programs for the poor. While poor voters did not turn out in high numbers for the election, they were certainly affected by his subsequent policies.

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 295 4/27/12 2:56 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.2 Public Participation

Table 10.1 Voter Turnout by Demographic Characteristics 1964–1988

Demographic Group 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988

Total 70.5% 70.3% 64.9% 62.6% 62.3% 63.1% 60.1%

Income

Bottom 20% 53.7 57.5 50.7 47.4 47.7 47.8 42.7

20–40 percentile 63.1 67.0 55.9 55.1 54.2 57.5 52.2

40–60 percentile 72.8 74.2 63.3 62.4 60.5 63.5 58.9

60–80 percentile 78.7 79.7 71.6 69.9 68.9 70.3 67.5

Top 20% 85.2 85.4 80.7 78.4 76.1 77.6 76.9

Occupation

Service Worker 65.9 62.7 58.6 52.8 51.3 52.9 47.2

Blue Collar 65.6 62.3 54.2 49.8 48.0 49.4 44.5

White Collar 82.1 79.8 76.4 72.1 70.9 70.8 68.5

Education

No High School 59.4 56.4 48.9 46.8 44.5 45.1 38.4

Some High School 65.9 63.1 53.7 50.1 48.4 47.0 43.3

High School Graduate

76.5 74.2 66.1 62.0 61.0 61.0 56.6

Some College * 84.7 83.6 81.1 80.1 79.3 75.8

Post-College 88.2 86.9 87.4 85.2 84.9 84.4 83.9

*Available only in combined form

Source: Adapted from Table 18.5 in Richard B. Freeman, “What, Me Vote?” in Kathryn M. Neckerman ed., Social Inequality (New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 2004), p. 720.

Older people are more likely to vote than younger people, women are slightly more likely to vote than men, and whites are more likely to vote than members of racial or ethnic minority groups. Further, those with a strongly felt political ideology, often assumed from their families, religious group, or other social influence, are more likely to vote than more apathetic individuals. The idea of how one’s values, political ideology, and attitudes affect voting patterns will be explored later in this chapter.

Reasons for Nonvoting

In the United States, the electorate is not the same thing as, and in fact is only a segment of, the eligible electorate. The electorate consists of those who actually vote, while the eligible electorate consists of everyone who could vote, both voters and nonvoters—that is, people who have chosen not to engage in the political process. Among the eligible elector- ate, voter turnout during a presidential election is under 60 percent, and it is even lower

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 296 4/27/12 2:56 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.2 Public Participation

during midterm congressional elections (see Table 10.2). In other words, at least 40 percent of the eligible electorate choose to disfranchise. Why is this the case?

Table 10.2 National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1968–2008

Year Voting-Age Population

Voter Registration Voter Turnout Turnout of Voting-Age Population (percent)

2008 231,229,580 NA 132,618,580 56.8%

1998 200,929,000 141,850,558 73,117,022 36.4

1988 182,778,000 126,379,628 91,594,693 50.1

1978 158,373,000 103,291,265 58,917,938 37.2

1968 120,328,186 81,658,180 73,211,875 60.8

1968, 1988 and 2008 were presidential election years, and 1978 and 1998 were midterm election years.

Source: Federal Election Commission. Data drawn from Congressional Research Service reports, Election Data Services Inc., and State Election Offices. Information Please® Database, © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Downloaded from: National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960–2008—Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html#ixzz1DaBlMSAf

The Requirement to Register Anyone who wishes to vote is required to register, and this has proved to be one of the most significant barriers to voting. One purpose of registration is to safeguard against voter fraud. Tracking each individual voter helps ensure that the person will vote only once for a given candidate in a given election. But registration can be burdensome because it requires people to take the time to go someplace (often a local city hall or post office) and fill out a form. While this may be inconvenient, it helps emphasize the importance of voting and assumes that responsible citizens will take the time to go through the hoops of the process.

One response to low voter turnout is to take additional steps to ease access to regis- tration. After passage of the National Voter Registration (NVR) Act in 1993, various states implemented a motor- voter process, which allows people to register to vote when they register their cars with the state department of motor vehicles or apply for or renew a driver’s license. (Of course, for those who do not drive this may not be a big help.) The NVR Act also allowed people to register by mail or when applying for various social services.

One purpose of voter registration is to prevent fraud. How- ever, registration is often considered a barrier to voting because it requires individuals to fill out and submit a form.

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 297 4/27/12 2:56 PM

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html#ixzz1DaBlMSAf

CHAPTER 10Section 10.2 Public Participation

The Disillusionment of Poor Voters Low-income people are less likely to vote because they often do not want to lose the wages associated with taking time off to go to the polls, or they may feel that voting is irrelevant. They believe that electing even candidates who promise to enact economic and social programs that benefit lower-income groups will have little bearing on their lives. This belief may have something to do with the broker party nature of the system and the fact that powerful interest groups have an advantage over individuals who are not organized.

When people opt out of the system because they feel it does not really represent their inter- ests, their concerns become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Many politicians believe that there is no point in campaigning in areas or neighborhoods with high percentages of nonvoters. As noted in the last chapter, running for office is very expensive. Candidates must make stra- tegic decisions about where to allocate their resources. They are more likely to spend their time and money in neighborhoods that are known to have relatively high turnout, and less likely to pay much attention to neighborhoods where voters are known to stay home.

At the same time, nonvoting areas may present opportunities for unknown candidates to mount voter registration drives. This would require a grassroots campaign organization to go door to door and register people. Such a strategy rests on the assumption that, once registered, people will come out to vote for that candidate.

Constitutional Bases for Expanding Suffrage in the United States

Voting eligibility is addressed in just four places in the Constitution. The first is the Fif- teenth Amendment (see Figure 10.2), ratified in 1870, which states that a citizen cannot be denied the right to vote by the national government or any of the states on the basis of race,

color, or previous servitude. This was the constitutional basis for newly freed slaves to be eligible to vote after the Civil War. Next is the Nine- teenth Amendment, ratified in 1920, which says that citizens cannot be denied the right to vote on account of sex. This is the amendment that granted women the right to vote.

The Twenty-Fourth Amend- ment, ratified in 1964, states that the citizens’ right to vote in national elections cannot be denied for failing to pay a poll tax or any other tax. This was a response to many southern states that used such taxes to disqualify poor blacks from

Suffragettes stand out front of the Women Suffrage Head- quarters in Cleveland, 1912. The Nineteenth Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, was ratified in 1920.

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 298 4/27/12 2:56 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.2 Public Participation

voting. Finally, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the legal voting age from 21 to 18.

Voter eligibility is otherwise assumed to be a matter of states’ rights. States have always determined who is eligible to vote and handled their registration. It was the states that began to do away with property qualifications in the 1820s and it was the states, primarily in the South, that erected barriers to voting by African Americans. The women’s suffrage movement originally began as a grassroots movement on a state-by-state basis, with Wyo- ming being the first state to allow women to vote in 1893.

The constitutional amendments that expanded suffrage, along with federal legislation like the 1965 Voting Rights Act, all removed barriers to voting that were erected by the states. In fact, the Voting Rights Act prohibited states from imposing any “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure . . . to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” It was Congress’s specific intention to outlaw the practice of requiring otherwise qualified voters to pass literacy tests to register to vote, which had been another principal means (in addition to poll taxes) by which Southern states denied African Americans the right to vote.

Amendment XV

The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Amendment XIX

The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Amendment XXIV

The right of the citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in

Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll or other tax.

Amendment XXIV

The right of the citizens of the United States who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of age.

Figure 10.2: Voting Eligibility According to the Constitution

Voting eligibility is addressed in only four places in the Constitution, and all of them are amendments.

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 299 4/27/12 2:56 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.3 Types of Elections

Increasing the Voter Rolls

Both parties seek to increase their odds in elections by increasing the number of people registered as members of their party. Democrats often seek to register more poor voters, while Republicans would like to see registration among poor voters (who, after all, tend to vote for Democrats) limited. In recent years, both parties have sought to find new voters among the Latino population. Consequently, immigration reform, particularly along the southern border with Mexico, has become a hot political issue.

One version of immigration reform proposed allowing those who came into the United States illegally to become legal immigrants and ultimately citizens. This could increase the number of voters in a couple of ways. New immigrants who become citizens would be eli- gible to vote and would likely gravitate to the political party that supported the reform. If, for example, immigration reform is pushed primarily by Democrats in Congress, the effect might be to give the Democrats more votes in future elections. Any such effect would be somewhat delayed because the process of applying for citizenship takes about five years. But reform could increase the base of the party supporting it immedi- ately by attracting Latino vot- ers who are already citizens.

This strategy has not been limited to Democrats; Republicans have also courted the Latino vote. When Republican President George W. Bush was campaigning for office, he prided himself on being able to speak fluent Spanish in an attempt to increase support for the Republicans.

The number of voters could also be increased by registering more people and by lowering the voting age even further. Some have even suggested that people should be required by law to vote. Political scientist Arend Lijphart has noted that countries where people are required to vote do have higher turnout, even in places where penalties for noncompliance are low and enforcement is weak. Increasing the voter rolls, whether through immigration reform, beefed-up registration efforts, lowering the voting age, or voting requirements, would expand the tent of representation and include more people in the electoral process.

10.3 Types of Elections Political scientist V. O. Key Jr. famously observed that there were four types of elections: a maintaining election, a deviating election, a reinstating election, and a realigning election.

Latinos demonstrate for immigration reform. Both Demo- crats and Republicans continue to court the Latino vote.

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 300 4/27/12 2:56 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.3 Types of Elections

It is the last one that he calls a critical election because it represents a massive and durable shift in party loyalty that results in a long-term change in the composition of government.

American political pundits often want to label almost any election a critical election, par- ticularly right after it occurs. This is especially true following a vote that causes substan- tial shifts in the composition of Congress. However, only time will tell if the election was truly different from those that came before it.

Maintaining Elections

A maintaining election is one in which the political party in power, such as the majority party in Congress, remains in power. This type of election requires a continuation of party loyalty among the party-in-the-electorate, which assumes a few things. For example, sup- pose Susan is a registered Democrat and she votes for the Democratic candidate because she has always voted for the Democratic candidate. Her loyalty to the party, however, runs much deeper than habit. She is a Democrat because her parents have always been Demo- crats, and for that matter so were her grandparents. If Democratic voters like Susan are loyal to their party and it is the majority party in Congress, it will remain the majority party.

The election is a maintaining election because the allegiance of the voters has not changed, most likely because the nation is not facing any major crises. Voters see no reason to dis- rupt the relative calm and stability by altering the composition of Congress. A maintaining election, then, is about preserving the status quo. A pattern of maintaining elections may result in representatives becoming complacent. If they can rely on long-standing party loyalty among the electorate, they may not feel the need to be as close to the people as they would if their races were more competitive.

Deviating Elections

A deviating election occurs when short-term forces over- take long-term party loyalties. Voters cast their ballots for the other party, displacing the majority party from power. Suppose, for example, that during a Democratic adminis- tration, the price of oil shoots up to $300 a barrel, which leads to a severe recession in the United States. Unemploy- ment skyrockets, and our friend Susan is among those who lose their jobs. She and others like her may feel that since all this happened on the Democrats’ watch, they want

Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential election victory is an example of a deviating election because large numbers of Democrats crossed party lines to vote for him.

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 301 4/27/12 2:56 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.3 Types of Elections

to vote for the Republican candidate. While Susan and many other Democrats may vote for the Republican in this election, and maybe even the next, they still consider themselves to be loyal Democrats. That is, they continue to maintain their allegiance to their party even though they feel compelled to vote for the other one due to what might be considered short-term forces. The result is seen as a temporary deviation from the norm because the expectation is that once the crisis is over, the old majority party will be returned to power.

Reinstating Elections

The return to power of a former majority party following a deviating election is called a reinstating election. If oil returns to below $60 a barrel, unemployment drops, and Susan finds a new job, the crisis may be seen as over. Now Susan and others like her go back to voting the way they always have: on the basis of traditional party loyalty. A reinstating election brings a return to the status quo. It also verifies that whatever forces resulted in the deviation truly were short-lived. The political landscape remains unchanged. Thus, the reinstating election has much in common with both the maintaining and the deviating elections: They all represent relative stability in the composition of both the party-in-the- electorate and the party-in-the-government, with the electorate generally voting on the basis of traditional party loyalties.

Realigning Elections

A realigning election produces a major change in the composition of the party-in-the-gov- ernment following a massive shift in the party-in-the-electorate. Voters abandon longtime traditional party loyalties and shift their allegiance from the majority party to the minority party, and the result is that the minority party becomes the new majority party. As V. O. Key Jr. saw it, a realigning election is indeed a critical election. But for the election to be truly critical it would have to be both sharp and durable. To be sharp, voter participation would have to be relatively high and it would have to be clear that whatever divisions within the electorate existed prior to the election had been fundamentally altered. It would also have to occur at all levels of government.

For it to be durable, the new electoral composition would have to persist over time. In order to measure the sharpness of the shift, it would be essential to locate an issue or a set of issues that would cause voters to make a monumental change. But because it would also have to be durable, it would be extremely difficult to examine a single election isolated from its larger political context. There has to be some type of momentous event, such as a war for survival or a deep recession or depression, that reorders the political landscape in ways not seen before.

Key argued that for there to be such a massive shift in one election, there would have to be a significant cleavage among the electorate. We might argue, for example, over whether the government should provide universal healthcare, and a cleavage may be said to exist between conservatives who espouse individual liberty and limited government and liber- als who support greater equality and more active government. If times are good and most people are confident about their economic future, perhaps the majority party that sup- ports healthcare reform can continue to hum along. But a deep recession resulting in high

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 302 4/27/12 2:56 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.3 Types of Elections

unemployment and increased anxiety can cause the exist- ing division to become more pronounced.

Key also recognized that there have been few instances in American history when voters switched allegiance in a single election. So he expanded the concept to include gradual shifts that occur over a long period, rather than suddenly. A given election might rep- resent a phase in a long-term process of declining group solidarity. The critical elec- tion, then, might be said to represent the culmination of a process. In the critical election voters abandon their party and switch allegiance to the other one. So if Susan was for many years a Democrat, as a result of a critical election she will have re-registered as a Republican and her allegiance will be to the Republican Party for many years to come. If Susan and her fellow former Democrats maintain their new Republican Party allegiance, the election is considered to be a permanent shift, at least in political time. Students of critical elections suggest that they occur every 30 years or so.

Consequences of Realignment The most profound consequence of a realignment is a change in the party-in-the-govern- ment, which in turn usually means a significant change in policy direction. Of course, this would stand to reason because there probably would not have been a realignment if the electorate had been pleased with the direction of the country and the policies that it was pursuing prior to the election. If realignments occur frequently it would suggest that there is instability in the political system. It would also suggest a relatively high degree of competition between the political parties.

Examples of Realignment The election of 1932, which occurred after the Great Depression hit, was an example of a realigning election because the Republicans lost the majority control of Congress to the Democrats, who went on to hold that power until 1954. Many of the state houses also became Democratic, and the office of president went to and was held by a Democrat for the next 20 years. All of the presidents elected from 1860 until 1932—with the exceptions of Grover Cleveland, elected in both 1884 and 1892, and Woodrow Wilson, elected in 1912—had been Republican. Because of the depths of the Depression, Roosevelt came to office backed by an electoral coalition that included ethnic and religious minorities, blue- collar workers and union members, as well as the traditional Southern states. This new coalition would remain the base of the Democratic Party until the late 1960s.

V. O. Key Jr. observed that there are four types of elections. Which of these do you think best describes the 2008 presi- dential election?

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 303 4/27/12 2:56 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.3 Types of Elections

However, the concept of a realignment may not be all that meaningful. To say a par- ticular election was a critical election because a realignment occurred is to take a retrospec- tive view. It does not neces- sarily mean that one can pre- dict future elections based on what happened in the past. As an example, consider the following: Political commen- tator Kevin Phillips wrote The Emerging Republican Majority in 1969 in an attempt to analyze the 1968 election of Richard Nixon as president. According

to Phillips, this was the beginning of an electoral realignment because more people were moving to the suburbs and these suburban communities were voting Republican. Begin- ning with Nixon, the Republicans would hold the presidency until 2009, with the excep- tions of Jimmy Carter’s election in 1976 and Bill Clinton’s in 1992 and 1996. Not only did suburban communities go Republican, so too did many Southern states because they were upset that President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, signed the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Because the base of the Democratic Party had always been in the cities, Phillips reasoned, the party would not be able to hold its majority if the demographics changed in favor of suburbia. If Phillips was correct and 1968 was the beginning of a realignment at the presi- dential level, that would mean that the 1976 election of Democrat Jimmy Carter was the deviation and the 1980 election of Republican Ronald Reagan was the reinstatement. Carter may have won because of the deep divisions over Watergate, and because sitting President Gerald Ford was never really elected in the first place. He was appointed vice president shortly before Nixon resigned.

But if 1968 was not a realigning election, then it was a deviating one with 1976 serving as the reinstating and the realignment happening in 1980. Nixon won in 1968 in a close election amid deep divisions over the Vietnam War and the sense that there was too much lawlessness in the Democratic Party, as evidenced by the violence at the 1968 Democratic Party convention in Chicago. Ultimately, the answer to whether an election was a critical election is a matter of interpretation.

Key argued that a truly critical election would require a huge voter turnout. Since the 1980s, however, so-called realignments have occurred with very low turnout. The 1994 election might be a case in point. Many political pundits were quick to call it a realignment because the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years, as well as the Senate, which they had not held since 1986. However, voter turn- out was very low, with only 38.8 percent of the eligible electorate voting. A realignment by Key’s theory would have required a much larger turnout among voters. The theory of a realignment in 1968 would appear to be more plausible based on voter turnout being close to 60.1 percent (see again Table 10.2).

The 1968 presidential election, won by Richard Nixon, has been called a realigning election.

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 304 4/27/12 2:56 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.4 The Role of Public Opinion in Elections

Primaries and Caucuses

While general elections can fall into any of the categories just discussed, they cannot occur without a field of presidential candidates from which to choose, and this field is ultimately determined at the state level, through a series of primaries and caucuses. As we noted in the last chapter, since the 1960s, states have increasingly adopted either primary elections or participatory caucuses as a means of selecting candidates for both parties.

There are usually two types of primaries: an open primary or a closed primary. Most states have closed primary elections where only members of a party can vote in that par- ty’s primary. A registered Democrat in New York, for example, would be allowed to vote only among the Democrats running for that state’s party nomination. The same would be true for Republicans. In an open primary, however, a person can vote in either one, regardless of his or her registered party. In all cases, an individual can vote only in one or the other, not both.

Another way of selecting candidates is through the caucus system. Caucuses tend to be found in smaller states (such as Iowa) and require a greater time investment from the voters than casting a ballot. In a caucus, voters report to their polling station, in which each candidate has an area. Voters then go to the area of their preferred candidate, but voters in other areas, i.e., supporters of other candidates, can challenge the preferences of others. This often leads to a general discussion of why one candidate is preferable to another. At the end of the night, support in each area in each precinct is tallied up and delegates are apportioned on the basis of the percentage of support that each candidate received.

The plus to all this is that people who participate in a caucus must be familiar with the positions of the candidates so that they can intelligently defend their choices. The dis- advantage of a caucus system is that caucus states have lower turnout precisely because they require more commitment from the voters. As a consequence, the outcomes may not be entirely representative of the state electorate because only the “activists” tend to participate. Nineteen states use caucuses for presidential nominations. Texas uses both, with two-thirds of delegates selected through primaries and one-third selected through caucus.

10.4 The Role of Public Opinion in Elections The outcome of an election often reflects the tide of public opinion. As Barack Obama defeated John McCain in 2008, the electoral outcome can be said to reflect the public’s preference for Obama. The public may be of the opinion that Obama better reflects its values, will better serve its interests, will do a better job, or all three. In addition to being reflected in an election’s outcome, public opinion also shapes elections. It often drives a candidate to take particular positions to be elected.

However, elections reflect more than public opinion. People may have voted for Obama because he was new and because he was youthful. They may have agreed with some of

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 305 4/27/12 2:56 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.4 The Role of Public Opinion in Elections

McCain’s policy positions but voted against him because they did not like his running mate, Sarah Palin, or because they thought he was too closely associated with the previous Republican presi- dent, George W. Bush. The outcome of the 2008 presi- dential election did not nec- essarily reflect a majority of public opinion. Many voted for Obama because they were unhappy over the Iraq war and were looking for an alternative to Bush, but some of these same voters might have been in agreement more with McCain when it came to issues of taxes and healthcare. As much as we talk about the importance of public opinion in democracy, it is not always the easiest concept to measure.

Defining Public Opinion: Values, Ideology, and Attitudes

Public opinion generally encompasses three things: values, political ideology, and attitudes. Values represent deep-rooted goals, aspirations, and ideals that shape an individual’s per- ceptions of political issues. As an example, most Americans believe in freedom as a funda- mental American value. Though we may all define it differently, we all aspire to live freely.

Differences over the meaning of freedom involve political ideology, which refers to a com- plex and interrelated set of beliefs and values that form a general philosophy about gov- ernment. As a matter of ideology, one might think that personal freedom is maximized when government is limited in its function. A limited government would mean little regu- lation, low taxes, and very few social programs. Such an ideology is often referred to as conservative. A more extreme version of limited government might find expression in what we call libertarianism, which is a political ideology that calls for a minimal state. This is the notion that government should serve no function other than to protect us and enforce contracts, because all other governmental actions have the potential to infringe upon our liberty. The political ideology that values government support for disadvan- taged populations and/or during periods of hardship is considered liberal or progressive.

An attitude is a specific view about a particular issue, personality, or event. An example of an attitude is that Diane, who subscribes to a libertarian ideology, will vote for the can- didate who promises to lower taxes, since that candidate most closely reflects her view of the appropriate role of government. Diane says that she values personal freedom, and her political ideology is one of limited government, which in her view entails lower taxes. Her

In the 2008 presidential election, public opinion turned against John McCain’s vice presidential running mate, Sarah Palin, left, and it probably cost him the election.

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 306 4/27/12 2:56 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.4 The Role of Public Opinion in Elections

attitude toward particular candidates for office, as to whether they are good or bad for the country, is determined by her ideology, which was shaped by her values.

All three of these factors—values, political ideology, and attitudes—may be affected by the place of the economy in American society. One’s values are often shaped by one’s socio- economic status. One’s political ideology often has to do with what one believes is the appropriate role of government in society, and whether government should regulate the economy. Political ideology is in turn shaped by whether one believes that the economy will naturally correct itself and ultimately lead to opportunity, or whether the economy is prone to market failure and requires governmental action to maintain fairness.

Measuring Public Opinion Through Polling

The easiest way to measure public opinion is through surveys. Analysts routinely conduct public opinion polls to get a sense of the public attitude toward a particular issue. Politi- cians running for office, members of Congress, the White House, and news organizations will also from time to time conduct polls to get a pulse on what the public thinks. Polls are usually conducted by big survey firms like Harris Interactive (formerly the Harris Poll), Gallup (the Gallup Poll), Zogby, and others. A poll is usually administered over the phone, with the results being tallied by a computer.

When a poll is conducted using scientific techniques, it can be quite accurate. This means that a sample of the population is picked on the basis of randomization, meaning that each person in the sample universe has an equal chance of being selected. A poll of registered Democratic activists is not a valid sample because the activists may be more ideological, and therefore produce a biased result, especially if the results are presented as representa- tive of the entire population. Selecting a sample by picking, say, every fourth name in the phone book is more valid. A sample selected on this basis is likely to produce an accurate measure of public opinion within a margin of error of plus or minus 4–5 percentage points.

Polls can also, however, shape and sometimes even manipulate public opinion. Some of this shaping may take place in polling itself, depending on the methodology that is used. If we want to get somebody’s opinion on abortion, we might ask: “Do you favor a wom- an’s right to choose?” or “Are you pro-abortion?” The two questions are not the same. A person may not be pro-abortion but may be pro-choice. Or he or she may favor choice in certain circumstances, such as in incidences of rape. Simply asking how one feels about abortion does not adequately capture the diversity of people’s views on the subject.

Today practically everybody has a phone, but 60 years ago when many, primarily the poor, did not, selecting on the basis of the phone book would have produced a biased sample. In the early days of polling, there were some inaccuracies. The most famous case was the 1948 election where pollsters predicted Thomas Dewey’s defeat of President Harry Truman. Dewey went to bed thinking that he won, only to find out that he lost. One of the most famous pictures in the press was Truman holding up the Chicago Daily Tribune with the headline “Dewey defeats Truman.” Pollsters readily acknowledge that the poll- ing techniques were not as well developed in 1948 as they are today.

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 307 4/27/12 2:56 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.4 The Role of Public Opinion in Elections

Forces that Shape Values and Ideology

Individuals are not generally born with a particular set of values or an ideology. Rather, these are developed through agencies of socialization, which are institutions and/ or influences that help shape one’s basic political worldview. The four most important agencies of socialization are the family, social groups, education, and prevailing political conditions.

The most important agency of socialization is the family. Individuals learn from their par- ents. If George grew up in a liberal household where his parents constantly talked about a community’s need to help its members and that wealthier people had an obligation to give back to society in the form of higher taxes, then there is a good probability that George will share many of those views. He internalizes the values of his parents, and over time they become his own. The socioeconomic status of an individual’s family might also affect one’s political ideology and values. Individuals from more educated and affluent families are often more likely to be more socially liberal than individuals from less edu- cated and working-class families, although there are exceptions to this.

The second-most important agency of socialization is education, or the types of schools one attends. An individual who is educated to think critically might be more open to competing ideas. Suppose that Diane went to a public school in rural Texas where most teachers were relatively conservative in their outlook. If her teachers stressed personal responsibility and self-reliance and emphasized a particular conception of American lib- erty predicated on limited government, Diane would be more likely to adopt those values as well.

People are also socialized by the types of social groups, such as interest groups or churches, they belong to. Someone who belongs to a conservative social group is more likely to be conservative. However, it is also likely that she joined the conservative social group because she already had those values based on the family’s influence. On the one hand, a social group can reinforce preexisting values. But on the other hand, it could shape one’s beliefs if that person had not necessarily had strong opinions coming from the family environment. A social group is an important reinforcement because people are interacting with others who share their values and think in the same way.

Lastly, political values and ideology are likely to be affected by the prevailing political and economic conditions. Diane’s libertarianism may be reinforced if she sees increasing gov- ernment programs available to the poor due to a prolonged period of economic decline. As much as people need assistance, she believes that it imposes a huge cost to personal liberty. But her libertarianism may also be reinforced by a political climate that she per- ceives as having been too indifferent to people’s individual liberties for too long.

Cleavages in Public Opinion

It is tempting to talk about American public opinion as though there is one unified public. But public opinion in America is characterized by deep divisions between people’s worldviews

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 308 4/27/12 2:56 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.4 The Role of Public Opinion in Elections

and the political ideologies on which those worldviews are based. Factors affecting these cleavages include occupation, race, religion, and socioeco- nomic status.

Individuals in higher pay- ing occupations may have a different view of taxes than individuals in lower paying ones. Likewise, if Congress were to introduce a bill for tort reform—to limit the amount of money juries could award to victims of medical malprac- tice—it is not hard to see that political battle lines might be drawn around occupations. Lawyers who get paid a size-

able percentage of such awards in fees might generally be opposed to the reform because it would limit their income. Doctors, on the other hand, might favor such a bill because large lawsuits lead to higher malpractice insurance premiums. Health insurance companies might also favor reform because it might result in fewer costly medical tests being ordered by doc- tors worried about being sued.

But while occupation may account for varying attitudes on specific policies, it may not be as important in explaining other political attitudes. Race is often a more important vari- able in the equation. Affirmative action, for instance, often deeply divides public opinion along racial lines. Recall from the last chapter that affirmative action was initially a series of guidelines in hiring for positions in the federal government, and it became a policy that those with federal contracts were expected to adopt. The goal was to level the play- ing field. Blacks tend to be supportive of affirmative action programs because they have faced historic discrimination, while whites tend to be opposed on the grounds that for them, at least, it amounts to reverse discrimination. Still, such cleavages are not absolute. More affluent whites tend to be supportive of affirmative action, while many successful blacks oppose it because they feel that it stigmatizes them. They want their success to be attributed solely to their abilities.

Religion is also an important source of cleavage in public opinion. Catholics and evan- gelical Christians tend to oppose abortion and gay marriage and may vote for or against a candidate because of his or her position on these issues. Evangelical Christians also tend to be very much in favor of school prayer, even to the point that they believe that the First Amendment should be rewritten to end the traditional separation of church and state. Meanwhile, Jews tend to oppose school prayer and anything that violates the separation of church and state because they often see it as a threat to the freedom to practice their faith.

Affirmative action often deeply divides public opinion along racial lines.

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 309 4/27/12 2:56 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.5 Public Opinion and the Press

10.5 Public Opinion and the Press We assume that, in a democracy, government measures public opinion and acts on the basis of it. In other words, public opinion is supposed to influence what government does. If this were true, government actions would be based on a utilitarian calculus of the great- est happiness for the greatest number of people.

Applied to democratic governance, utilitarianism means the majority rules. To act on the basis of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people means that government must constantly measure public opinion and those measurements must influence what government does. But things might not always be so straightforward. Government, for instance, may seek to shape public opinion through the press. This raises the question of what role the press plays in public opinion. On the one hand, the press may report on what the public thinks about a particular issue. On the other hand, it may shape and even create public opinion.

Role of the Media

Democracies require an independent and free press to add another check and balance on the potential abuse of power. A story in the press about a presidential adviser, for example, might catch the attention of members of Congress, leading to oversight hearings into the actions of the executive branch. In this case, the press can help keep public officials honest.

However, the press also plays an inevitable role in shaping public opinion. As an example, consider the protests against the Egyptian government of Hosni Mubarak that broke out in January 2011. The protests were confined mostly to the main square in central Cairo, and protestors called for Mubarak to step down and for the government to hold democratic elections. All news channels reported on the protests, and as a result the Obama admin- istration found itself caught between the need to balance support for a longtime U.S. ally with the need to support a democracy movement that seemed consistent with core American values. A hasty change in Egypt’s govern- ment could lead to instability in the region and ultimately threaten American interests.

Even if we assume that the pro- tests represent Egyptian public opinion, it is not clear that the press was merely reporting it. Had protests not erupted there would be no reason for the press to converge on Cairo. By

President Obama supported the American call to oust Presi- dent Mubarak after Americans expressed their opinions on television and through social media like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 310 4/27/12 2:56 PM

CHAPTER 10Section 10.5 Public Opinion and the Press

constantly showing the scenes of protests only in this square, the press may have presented a distorted view of what was going on. Few reported the absence of protests outside the square. This is not a trivial point because viewers did not know for certain that the protes- tors in the square were representative of the entire population. Remember that the American media is a commercial enterprise driven by the need to show a profit. Pictures like those in Tahir Square, because they are sensational, sell. Mitigating their impact by placing them in context generally does not. In television news, in particular, when each story may have been allotted only one to one and a half minutes, an image can say a lot.

If Americans watching the protests sympathized with the Egyptian protestors because that was all they saw, and the press reported that American public opinion was firmly behind the democracy movement, did the press not shape public opinion? And by shap- ing public opinion, it also shaped American public policy, especially the U.S. response to what was going on in Egypt. It was only several days into the protests, after the American people were riveted by them on television, YouTube, and other social media like Twitter, that President Obama demanded that Mubarak must go.

Critics will point to this type of scenario as an example of what is wrong with an unregu- lated press. As members of a free society, however, we would not want all our information to be provided by the government, because any government is likely to release only the information it wants its citizens to know.

The media is indeed a powerful force in American politics. Because it decides what it wants to report and how much time to devote to a particular story, it can shape the politi- cal agenda and force politicians to respond. As “gatekeepers,” newspaper editors and tele- vision news producers decide which stories are important. Editorial page editors decide what types of editorials to print. Editorials in major papers like the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post can have significant politi- cal consequences. By shaping the agenda, the press can also have a huge influence on American public opinion, which in turn can affect election outcomes.

The principal source of the media’s power is its ability to frame and set an agenda. Fram- ing involves how a particular story is set up and the context in which it is presented, and it affects how the public interprets political events and results. If any story involving for- mer President Bill Clinton is always introduced with a reminder that he was impeached because he lied about an extramarital affair, the public might consider his presidency more in terms of his indiscretion rather than his political accomplishments. Similarly, setting up stories about political candidates with a discussion about the “Tea Party” can affect view- ers’ preferences for or against that candidate.

Another source of media influence is known as priming, which is when media coverage affects the way the public evaluates political leaders or candidates for office. Priming is when news content suggests that an audience ought to use specific benchmarks to evaluate a public official’s performance. Unlike framing, the priming question might look as follows: “Given Bill Clinton’s extramarital affairs, can we really trust him?” Or “Given Sarah Palin’s affiliation with the Tea Party, can we expect her to govern respon- sibly?” The idea is that we are to assess Clinton’s trustworthiness based on what we know about his marital infidelity and Palin’s capacity to lead based on what we assume

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 311 4/27/12 2:56 PM

CHAPTER 10Summary and Application

we know about the behavior of the Tea Party. The media will, of course, respond that they merely report what is out there. After all, they could not report on a candidate’s extramarital affair if he did not have one.

Summary and Application Elections are a staple of the American political system, and through elections we achieve democratic expression. Elections enable the peaceful transfer of power, which is funda- mental to democracy. Through elections we also offer our tacit consent for our American constitutional tradition. Although elections in the United States serve an important func- tion, as is true in any democracy, the outcomes of American elections may not be com- pletely representative of the preferences of the American people. This is because much of the eligible electorate chooses not to vote. Voting is a matter of individual preference, and the freedom to choose generally must include the freedom not to vote. But non-participa- tion is particularly problematic in the United States because the majority of those who do not vote tend to be poor, and the poor often choose not to vote because they do not feel the political system is responsive to their needs. When people choose not to vote, representa- tives might not feel as obligated to represent them. The effects of non-participation, then, may be to distort the representative function of elections.

As critical as elections are to the democratic process, they may also tell us much about our beliefs and core values. On the one hand, they may be said to reflect American pub- lic opinion. But on the other hand, they may speak to deep cleavages in public opinion. Political pundits often like to evaluate elections within the context of critical elections, whether there has been a sharp and durable shift in party affiliation following deep politi- cal cleavages, which results in a new majority party in power. A critical election may result in a new policy direction for the country. A critical election also often reveals that the American people are not of one mind with regard to what constitutes our core beliefs and values. This means that there is no such thing as one American public with one opinion on any given subject; rather, there are multiple publics, which often break down along class, educational, occupational, and racial lines.

Measuring public opinion is important to the electoral process. But it is not always clear what is being measured. When members of Congress take a position on an issue, they might be responding to public opinion as reported either in polls or in what is being reported in the press. This means that the press also plays an important role in American politics. It can serve to hold public officials accountable by making it clear what the public has to say on a given issue. But the press can also manipulate public opinion by framing the political agenda and priming in elections.

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 312 4/27/12 2:56 PM

CHAPTER 10Summary and Application

Concept Check

1. The purpose of an election is to

a) Reject the old b) Affirm the new c) Change the government d) All of the above

2. Those most likely to vote are

a) Unemployed because they have time on their hands b) Voters with higher incomes and educational attainment c) Poorly educated d) Blue-collar workers

3. An election is considered to be a critical one when

a) The voters have realigned themselves with a different party b) The voters have deviated from their traditional loyalties c) The voters have affirmed their traditional party allegiance d) The voters reinstate a displaced government

Key Ideas to Remember

• Through elections we express ourselves as a political community, give our tacit acceptance of the constitutional arrangements that govern us, and achieve a peaceful transfer of power.

• Voting is the most basic form of public participation, but those with higher socio- economic status tend to participate more. The effect of nonvoting might be to dis- tort the democratic process.

• Nonvoting tends to be more concentrated among lower-income groups, largely because they do not think that voting will significantly improve their lives. Regis- tering to vote has proved to be a significant barrier for some groups. Attempts to register more voters could significantly increase the number of people voting.

• V. O. Key identified four types of elections, with a realigning election identified as a “critical” election. For an election to be critical, there would have to be a sharp and durable realignment among the electorate in terms of party affiliation, as measured by significant and lasting change in the party-in-the-government. The realignment would be brought on by deep divisions in the country that might be precipitated by a severe crisis.

• Elections often reflect changes in public opinion, which encompasses values, politi- cal ideology, and attitudes.

• The press is considered to be a powerful force in American politics because of its ability to shape public opinion by how it presents and frames issues.

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 313 4/27/12 2:56 PM

CHAPTER 10Summary and Application

4. Public opinion is important because it

a) Tells politicians what to do b) Tells us what elected officials think is important c) Tells us what the press thinks is important d) Says something about what we as Americans believe in and think is important

5. People’s values and ideologies are shaped by

a) Elected officials b) Agencies of socialization c) Their place of birth d) How much they have to pay in taxes

6. Which of the following is not a factor when it comes to how the media can influ- ence public opinion?

a) The way the press describes a candidate b) The issues the press decides to cover c) Whether a state has an open or closed primary d) The way the press presents an issue

Answers: 1c; 2b; 3a; 4d; 5b; 6c

Questions to Consider

• Why do we have elections? • Why are elections critical to the peaceful transfer of power? • What demographic factors are most likely to predict whether an individual

votes? • Why do some people choose not to participate in the political process? • What does V. O. Key’s typology of elections tell us about the nature of American

politics? • How does public opinion relate to values and political ideology? • What are some of the sources of the opinions that we have and what are the bases

for cleavages in public opinion? • What role does the press play in measuring public opinion? • Given Key’s definition of a critical election, can we say that the 1994 election was

an example of one? Why or why not?

Web Links

Federal Election Commission: http://www.fec.gov/

Polling Report.com: http://www.pollingreport.com/

Gallup: http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 314 4/27/12 2:56 PM

http://www.fec.gov/

http://www.pollingreport.com/

http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx

CHAPTER 10Summary and Application

The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division: Voting Rights Act of 1965: http:// www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/intro/intro_b.php

Federal Voting Assistance Program: http://www.fvap.gov/vao/svcvotesites.html

Media Education Foundation: http://www.mediaed.org/

Media Research Center (conservative watchdog group): http://www.mrc.org/public/ default.aspx

Media Matters (progressive watchdog group): http://mediamatters.org/

Key Terms

agencies of socialization Institutions that help shape an individual’s political values.

closed primary A statewide presidential candidate selection where one can vote only in the party primary that one is regis- tered for.

critical election An election in which a major party realignment occurs.

eligible electorate The total population of individuals who could vote if they chose to do so.

framing The way the media sets up a particular story in order to influence how people interpret political events and results.

libertarianism The belief that governmen- tal functions should be limited to no more than providing basic protection so as not to interfere with individual liberty.

motor-voter A system of voter registration whereby people register to vote when they register their cars or apply for or renew a driver’s license.

open primary A statewide presidential candidate selection in which one can vote in either party primary, regardless of party affiliation.

priming When media coverage affects the way the public evaluates political leaders or candidates for office.

socioeconomic status One’s standing or position in society based on economic class and/or educational attainment.

tacit consent Giving effective agreement through a behavior, such as voting.

utilitarian One who believes that the pur- pose of government should be to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

Lev66425_10_ch10_p291-316.indd 315 4/27/12 2:56 PM

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/intro/intro_b.php

http://www.fvap.gov/vao/svcvotesites.html

http://www.mediaed.org/

http://www.mrc.org/public/default.aspx

http://mediamatters.org/

CHAPTER 10Summary and Application