Political Science

xca2f1p

chapter11-elections.pptx

Home >Social Science homework help >Political Science

Elections Introductions (1 of 2)

Voter turnout in the United States is significantly lower than other advanced democratic states.

Voter turnout is heavily influenced by a range of socioeconomic variables.

Certain demographic groups are more likely to vote in certain ways than others in the United States.

Elections Introductions (2 of 2)

The theory of electoral realignment, which seeks to explain changes in the party system, is subject to a range of criticisms.

Candidates and parties can deploy a range of strategies when attempting to win elections.

Why Do People Vote? (1 of 4)

11.1 Explain the low turnout in U.S. elections.

Historically, American voter turnout is pretty low.

Presidential elections averaged between 55% and 65% over the years.

Nonpresidential elections are far worse, averaging 40% or less.

Why Do People Vote? (2 of 4)

11.1 Explain the low turnout in U.S. elections.

Lots of reasons why people don't vote

Many citizens feel their vote does not make a difference.

Citizens feel there is a lack of quality candidates.

No interesting, clear-cut choices due to the nature of the two-party system

Negative television advertising turns voters off by the end of the election cycle.

Why Do People Vote? (3 of 4)

11.1 Explain the low turnout in U.S. elections.

Political scientists debate whether or not nonvoting is bad for democracy.

One school says that low voting is bad for democracy and that nonvoting illustrates a lack of legitimacy.

The other school suggests that nonvoting means citizens are basically satisfied.

Why Do People Vote? (4 of 4)

11.1 Explain the low turnout in U.S. elections.

Americans vote less when compared to Europeans.

The difference is in part due to automatic registration, the timing of elections, the ballots are simpler, and there are heavier limits and controls on television advertising.

Who Votes?

11.2 Review the variables that predict who is most likely to vote and why.

In most democracies, the average voters are:

Middle aged

Better educated

Urban

Likely to identify with a political party

Income and Education (1 of 3)

Voter turnout is affected by both income levels and education levels.

People with high income levels are much more likely to vote than those with lower income levels.

People with higher education levels vote at higher rates than those with less education.

The two factors are reinforcing—the higher your education level, the more likely it is that you will make more money.

Income and Education (2 of 3)

Voter turnout is affected by both income levels and education levels.

A factor that explains the difference between the two demographics is efficacy.

Higher education leads to a feeling that you at least have a little power and means to influence the system.

Efficacy is much higher for citizens who are professionals and much lower for those in the working class.

Education also has the effect of broadening interests and increasing the perception of having a stake in the system.

Income and Education (3 of 3)

There is a puzzle of voting behavior with respect to education.

As education levels have increased, voter turnout has declined, which may mean that education as a predictive factor of voting behavior means less than it used to.

Some of this can be attributed to the effects of postmaterialism in advanced societies.

postmaterialism: Theory that modern culture has moved beyond getting and spending.

Race

Race is also a factor that affects voter turnout.

Until recently, African Americans had a much lower turnout rate than other groups in society.

1965 Voting Rights Act removed many of the barriers to voting that had kept turnout levels low.

multicausal: Several factors making something happen.

if-then statement: Says that two variables are linked: Where X happens, so does Y.

tendency: Finding that two variables are linked but not perfectly.

Age (1 of 2)

Age is a factor that influences voter turnout, with young people voting at consistently lower rates than older citizens.

Young people under the age of 25 are less likely to vote.

Many (about ½) are not registered to vote.

franchise: The right to vote.

Age (2 of 2)

The 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18 in the United States, but young people still don't vote.

Young people are less economically involved and therefore have lower voter turnout rates.

This changes as they age, they pay taxes, and their stake increases.

franchise: The right to vote.

Gender

Gender is a factor that influences voting.

Traditionally, women have voted at lower rates than men, but this has changed in recent years, with women's turnout rates surpassing men's.

This is correlated with education rates increasing among women.

suffrage: The right to vote.

Place of Residence (1 of 2)

Urban areas have higher voting turnout rates than rural areas.

This is a reflection in part of the higher turnout rates among people with higher levels of education, as urban areas have higher concentrations of people with higher levels of education.

Polling stations are also nearer in urban areas than in rural, which makes voting much easier for many citizens.

Place of Residence (2 of 2)

Regional differences do matter in voter turnout as well.

U.S. South used to have lower voter turnout rates than many other parts of the United States, but this has changed in recent years.

Southern France has lower voter turnout rates than Northern France.

Who Votes How?

11.3 Review the variables that predict who votes how.

Voting is affected by multiple factors. Some of those factors are long-term in nature and some are short-term.

Long-term factors affect how a person votes over the course of his/her lifetime.

Short-term factors affect how a person votes in a given election.

Partisan Identification (1 of 4)

The attachments that citizens feel toward a party for a long time, will influence how a citizen votes in elections.

Citizens with strong party identification will habitually vote for one party.

Citizens with weak party identification will be much easier to swing and may cross party lines.

swing: Percentage of voters switching parties from one election to the next.

class voting: Tendency of a given social class to vote for a party that promotes its economic interests.

voting bloc: Group with a marked tendency.

Partisan Identification (2 of 4)

A person's party identification is heavily influenced by his/her parents, and people will usually adopt the party ID held by their parents.

Party identification is important in helping to ensure electoral stability.

If party ID is stable, then politicians are able to anticipate what voters want and will work to deliver it.

Weak party identification leads to volatility in voter preferences.

swing: Percentage of voters switching parties from one election to the next.

class voting: Tendency of a given social class to vote for a party that promotes its economic interests.

voting bloc: Group with a marked tendency.

Partisan Identification (3 of 4)

Party identification is important in helping to ensure electoral stability.

Party ID used to be very important in European elections but seems to be weakening as a predictor of voting behavior.

This can be attributed in part to the decline in class voting in Europe, in addition to the effects of postmaterialism.

swing: Percentage of voters switching parties from one election to the next.

class voting: Tendency of a given social class to vote for a party that promotes its economic interests.

voting bloc: Group with a marked tendency.

Partisan Identification (4 of 4)

Party identification is important in helping to ensure electoral stability.

Groups that tend to identify with certain parties are called voting blocs, and politicians design their campaigns to try to win the blocs most likely to vote for them.

No bloc is entirely solid, though.

swing: Percentage of voters switching parties from one election to the next.

class voting: Tendency of a given social class to vote for a party that promotes its economic interests.

voting bloc: Group with a marked tendency.

Class Voting (1 of 2)

Social class is a determinant of voting behavior, and people will support political parties based on how they perceive their social class.

Class voting lower in the United States than in Europe, but still relevant.

Two things that muddy class voting

Working-class people who vote for conservative parties due to self-identification as middle-class, family traditions, or individual convictions.

Class Voting (2 of 2)

Two things that muddy class voting

Middle- and upper-class citizens who vote for parties on the left due to a working-class family background or the effects of higher education.

As a result, class voting is not as accurate of a predictor of voting behavior as we we would like, although it is still extremely relevant.

Regional Voting

Some regions identify strongly with certain parties. This is especially true in states that have a core/periphery struggle.

Celtic fringe votes for the British Labour Party.

U.S. South solidly Republican since the 1980s, the Northeast votes solidly Democratic.

Regional voting can change over time.

The North/South voting patterns in the United States are now the reverse of the period following the Civil War.

Race and Ethnicity (1 of 2)

Non-whites: growing electoral force in U.S. politics; this is especially true with the increased growth of the Hispanic population in the United States, the voting patterns of which seem to support the Democratic Party.

Race and Ethnicity (2 of 2)

Racial minorities: 28% of electorate.

Blacks: loyal to Democratic Party.

Working-class whites voting Republican.

American political parties seem to be polarizing along racial lines, which is not good for American democracy.

How the mainstream parties, especially Republicans, will bridge this gap as yet is unclear.

Religious Blocs

Single strongest predictor in U.S. voting, with those who identify as being religious much more likely to be conservative and vote for Republicans.

Other states have religious/secular divide as well, they are just not as pronounced as the United States'.

Age Groups

Young people "catch the tide" of their youth and stay with it.

Young people socialized to politics during the Great Depression vote Democratic for most of their life.

Reagan enthusiasm among young voters in the 1980s gave them a permanent identification with the Republican Party.

2012 election: young voters identified with Obama and it is likely that many of them will continue that identification through their lives.

Gender Gap

The growing gap between the voting behavior of men and women is becoming increasingly important in politics in the United States.

Women used to be more traditional and conservative than men, but now are more liberal by several percentage points and consistently vote for Democratic candidates, something that helped the candidacy of Obama.

Marriage Gap

Unmarried people are much more likely to vote for Democrats than are married people, who tend to be more conservative and vote for Republicans.

The problem for Republicans is that fewer people are getting married, which is a product in part of postmaterialism.

Gay Gap

2012 was the first time exit polls asked about sexual orientation, so the data we have concerning this trend are relatively limited but still compelling.

5% identified as gay and three-quarters of those supported Obama, which seems to suggest that gays and lesbians have a strong identification with the Democratic Party, although as rights-based issues such as same-sex marriage get resolved and other issues become salient this may change.

The Canadian ballot—paper marked with pencil—is clear, simple, standard, bilingual, and hand-counted in four hours nationwide. Any hints for the United States?

Urban Voting

Big cities vote strongly liberal or left.

This is due in part to both a high concentration of working-class voters as well as greater levels of education.

Small towns and rural areas tend to vote conservative.

The text argues that this is because these voters embrace conservative political values.

Electoral College: U.S. system of weighting popular presidential vote to favor smaller states.

anachronism: Something out of the past.

Electoral Realignment (1 of 4)

11.4 Criticize the theory of electoral realignment.

Electoral realignment is a theory of critical or realigning elections that seeks to explain how party identification can change.

realignment: Major, long-term shift in party ID.

critical election: A single election which proves to result in a realignment.

secular realignment: A slow, gradual shift in party ID.

Electoral Realignment (2 of 4)

11.4 Criticize the theory of electoral realignment.

In general, people retain party identification for years. However, according to realignment theory, certain watershed elections lead to voters dissolving existing, long-term partisan identifications in favor of new ones.

Critical elections set the stage for the emergence of new issues, debates, and topics.

This can lead to one party having dominance but not absolute control of government and the direction of public policy.

1800: Jeffersonian Democrats emerge

realignment: Major, long-term shift in party ID.

critical election: A single election which proves to result in a realignment.

secular realignment: A slow, gradual shift in party ID.

Electoral Realignment (3 of 4)

11.4 Criticize the theory of electoral realignment.

This can lead to one party having dominance but not absolute control of government and the direction of public policy.

1828: Jacksonian Democrats emerge

1860: Lincoln Republicans emerge

realignment: Major, long-term shift in party ID.

critical election: A single election which proves to result in a realignment.

secular realignment: A slow, gradual shift in party ID.

Electoral Realignment (4 of 4)

11.4 Criticize the theory of electoral realignment.

This can lead to one party having dominance but not absolute control of government and the direction of public policy.

1896: Business Republicanism emerges

1932: New Deal Democrats emerge

realignment: Major, long-term shift in party ID.

critical election: A single election which proves to result in a realignment.

secular realignment: A slow, gradual shift in party ID.

A New Realignment? (1 of 3)

Republicans argued that sweeps of 1980 and 1984 were signs of a new realignment that would end the dominance of the Democratic Party at the national level.

Party registration rose for Republicans and declined for Democrats.

In addition, young people registered and voted Republican.

polarization: Opinion fleeing the center to form two hostile camps.

religiosity: Degree of commitment to one's religion; often affects political beliefs.

dealignment: Major, long-term decline in party ID.

A New Realignment? (2 of 3)

Democrats argued that 2008 and 2012 were realignments in their favor.

This then speaks to one of the major difficulties of realignment theory.

If there has been a realignment, it may be difficult to spot.

polarization: Opinion fleeing the center to form two hostile camps.

religiosity: Degree of commitment to one's religion; often affects political beliefs.

dealignment: Major, long-term decline in party ID.

A New Realignment? (3 of 3)

Problems with realignment theory

Some political scientists want to throw the whole theory out.

Applies only to presidential elections

Americans sometimes choose to vote for divided government.

Clinton and Obama victories based on the economy, which undermines realignment theory

polarization: Opinion fleeing the center to form two hostile camps.

religiosity: Degree of commitment to one's religion; often affects political beliefs.

dealignment: Major, long-term decline in party ID.

What Wins Elections? (1 of 4)

11.5 Explain the strategies of winning elections.

In modern elections, the rational choice of voters is heavily manipulated by candidate personality and the mass media.

This means that modern parties showcase their leaders' personalities and that ideology is rarely mentioned or advertised.

charismatic: Having strong personal drawing power.

What Wins Elections? (2 of 4)

11.5 Explain the strategies of winning elections.

It is the image of leaders that matters and candidates are presented as charismatic, calm, and caring.

Reagan and Obama are good examples.

Candidates who are optimistic about the country and its prospects tend to win.

2008: Obama more optimistic than McCain, which was a contributing factor in voters casting ballots for him

charismatic: Having strong personal drawing power.

What Wins Elections? (3 of 4)

11.5 Explain the strategies of winning elections.

The campaigns are also media intensive, with photo opportunities and a heavy emphasis on managing the candidate by professionals as the worldwide trend.

Increase is due to the influence of mass media; television is the campaign.

The television spot, an American invention, now dominates campaigns worldwide.

The jingle clip: attention-getting

The ideological clip: ideas in images

The allegorical quip: candidate as the epic hero

charismatic: Having strong personal drawing power.

What Wins Elections? (4 of 4)

11.5 Explain the strategies of winning elections.

The campaigns are also media intensive, with photo opportunities and a heavy emphasis on managing the candidate by professionals as the worldwide trend.

Increase is due to the influence of mass media; television is the campaign.

Increasingly, elections are won by candidates with the best ads, which also means the candidates with the most money.

charismatic: Having strong personal drawing power.

Retrospective Voting (1 of 2)

Retrospective voting occurs when citizens vote based on their overall evaluation of the incumbent's performance. (Fiorina)

Looks at the last four years in retrospect and chooses a reward or punishment model

Rewards the incumbent's party if things (especially the economy) are going well; punishes the incumbent's party if things are going badly.

retrospective voting: Voters choosing based on overall incumbent performance.

Retrospective Voting (2 of 2)

Financial meltdown of 2008 swung the election decidedly in Obama's favor as voters punished Republicans for what they perceived as a mishandling of the economy.

Retrospective voting colored by many things.

retrospective voting: Voters choosing based on overall incumbent performance.

Candidate Strategies and Voter Groups (1 of 3)

Candidates want to avoid alienating their home base and want to win swing/independent voters.

This is a difficult task as candidates are pushed and pulled by competing forces.

In the end, this pressure makes candidates and campaigns incredibly centrist.

Candidates want to boost turnout among their supporters.

constituency: The people or district that elects an official.

Candidate Strategies and Voter Groups (2 of 3)

Candidates want to avoid alienating their home base and want to win swing/independent voters.

Presidential candidates focus on close, battleground states in the Electoral College.

States that are lopsided for one party over the other get little time and money.

Even though California and Texas have large electoral vote totals, because the states are so solidly in one corner or the other candidates spend little money and time there, as there is little to swing or win over.

Strategy reached high point in 2012 when presidential candidates campaigned in only ten swing states

constituency: The people or district that elects an official.

Candidate Strategies and Voter Groups (3 of 3)

Candidates focus on winning key voting blocs to help sweep them to office.

Blocs are not what they used to be and no bloc is truly monolithic.

Other factors, such ideology and party ID, are tricky as well when it comes to mobilizing blocs of voters.

As a result, candidates try to align themselves with clusters of values instead.

constituency: The people or district that elects an official.