Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • English Elections 12

    Uploaded by

    Giorgi Shelia
    12 views20 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    12 views20 pages

    English Elections 12

    Uploaded by

    Giorgi Shelia

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 20
    ; ELECTIONS + Why did U.S. voting turnout rise in 20047 + What went wrong with the US. eleetoral system in 2000? + Should we view U.S. nonvoting with alarm? + How does party 1D help decide elections? + Why is there a "gender gap” in U.S. voting? * Does income predict how a person votes? + Are we sccing electoral realignenent, dealignment, or neither? + How does the econom ‘more specific question about voting in the United States. Fist, we ask why peo- ke vote, This leads us to the puzzle of why voting mmout in the United States Is low. Second, we ask how people vote. This brings us to the question of whether party loyalties in the United States are shifting, Finally, we ask what wins elec- tions. This takes us to some of the strategies used in U.S. elections, I: this chapter we ask three general questions about voting, each followed by a @ Way Do Peorce Vote? Although committed to democracy and participation, Americans vote less than cit- izens of other democracies. in the 2004 U.S. election, 55.3 percent of those eligi- ble voted, a major improvement {rom previous years. Likely reason: Bota parties worked hard to turn out their potential supporters, Historically, voter tumout in Percent of those eligible who vote. aia — 23 he United Statés was never high; its peak in 1960 was 63 percent. Turnout in Sweden, Germany, and Italy has reached 90 percemt. Black South Africans in 1994, allowed to vote for the first tine, had a turnout of 86 percent, a measure of how much they appreciated the right to cast a ballot Im nonpresidential elections, U.S. twmout is perhaps quarter to a third. Why do Americans vote so litile? Typically, more than half of U.S, nonvoters say they are uninterested in or dissatisfied with candidates, Many feel their vate makes no difference or that none of the candidates is really good. Another reason is the U.S. party system. in which the twa large parties may not alfer an interesting or clear cut choice: both ist positions. Television saturates vaters so lang in advance—often with primitive, ditty political spots—that disgust many with beth, parties by election day. Fewer than one adult American in twenty is involved enough in politics to attend a political meeting, contribute money, or canvass a neighborhood U.S, nonvoting has brought major debate among politcal scientists, One school views the decline with alarm, arguing that low electoral participation means that many Americans are turning away from the political system, which loses legiti macy. Another school ig unworried, arguing that the decline means Americans mast of the time are basically satisfied with the system, or not sufficiently dissat isfied to go to register and vote. Countries with very hi + tumauts may have sort of political fever in which partisan polities has become too intense. The Unit ed States experienced some of this imensity in 2004, when emotional issues and a divided electorate brought aut more voters ‘Cs gh tro in 2005 saver ep erty or ara poling starion where there sus ally no lin. (Michael Raskin) a4 veer Is THE U.S. ELECTORAL System DEFECTIVE? [is 200 8 seal ton was olen ek, and oth tin ree ere ‘waiting to happen: (1) An anachronistic Electoral College was eventually going io deny slctory to the popular-vote winner: and (2) a defective balloting mechanism was eventually going to really matter Gore, with s nontrivial half-million more votes (0.51 percent more). Tost in electoral votes 10 Bush, 271-266, Siallar situations had happened three times in the nineteenth eentury. States and counties use whatever balloting system they wish, including defective ones. Some still use paper Ballots, some hand-lever voting machines designed in 1892, and some light+ Scanned ballois. Counties are slow to upgrade to electronic and touch-sereen systems because ‘of cost, The worst typeof system was in Palm Beach County, Florida, wich had a widely nsed and cheap forty-year-old technology: Voters put an IBM-type card into a metal frame and Punched owt a rectangle by thelr choice. Some ofthe little “chads"—as high as 6 percem—were not completely punched out, 30 counting machines read them as “no vote.” The system was ‘ong known to be delective and had spawned court cases in several staies; Massachusetts had ‘outlawed ft Making things worse in Palm Beach was a two-page “butterfly ballor” that confused votes, many of whom accidentally voted for rightwing populist Pat Buchanan instead of the intend- ced Al Gore. Those wito tried to fix the error by making another punch invalidated their ballot “This strongly Demacratc county lost some 20,000 votes for Gare, several times move than were needed to win Florida snd to win in the Electoral College The Electoral College was designed to overtepredent states with fewer voters, espectaly the Souther states, where slave-owning elites rejected notions of “one person, one vee.” Ese state gets as many electors as ifs senators and representatives, seven very smal sates get three tlectors. A vote for president in a thinly populated state has several times the power of a vate for president in a ppulous state, A vote In Wyoming is worth almost four times that of a vote it California. And small states, a huge swath of the mnddle of America, tend 10 go Republics States with big cities, clustered in the Northeast and on the Great Lakes and West Coast. tend to go Democrat ‘The Electoral College is widely thought o be an anachronism but can't be seriously reformed tecatne nineteen small states with three or fewer representatives like being overrepresented: Why the difference between European and American turnout? One obvious reason is that in Europe registration is automatic, upon reaching eighteen local au. thorities register you, Americans must register personally, months before the elec tion and before campaign excitement mounts, U.S. elections are held on Tuesdays, in much of Europe on Sundays, The U.S. long ballot with many local, state, and national candidates plus referendums baffles voters, European (and Canadian) Electoral College U.S. system of welghting pop 3 presiiential vote 10 lavor smaller states anachronism Something out of the past UNTEL, Pierr ight take a hin imple, usually just a choice of party, and » political advertising: some allow none. Ai @ WHO Votes? alse mare likely to iden Down’s THEORY OF VOTING rutwoigh the costs, Tht is, the stakes seem important, ctzens will yo to the trouble erty owners fearing 1 hikes are much more likely o vote than renters not immedi ss (Not al have the energy ar intstest to follow political news or a more than the less affluent, the well-educated more than ese twa characteristics often come together (goad educa ‘on leads 10 good salaries) and reinforee each other. High income gives people a stake in election outcomes, and educatian raises levels of interest and sophistication, Faciory workers in small towns mnay sec little difference between candidates. They pay 12 rules, make a living, and see little difference under Demo cratic or Republican administrations. In contrast, executives and professionals fecl ravolved and see a direct relationship between whe wins and their personal {or tune. Bluc-collar workers aré also affected by a change in administratfon, but they are less likely to know it The difference between voters and nonvoters is feeling of efficacy. the feeling that one has at least a little power. It tends to be low for workers and high far pro- fessionals, Better-off and better-educated people have seen interest groups sue sd in changing policy, Blue-collar workers likely see political life as a “siler majority.” Friends, neighbors, and family rarely had much wealth and rarely or- ganized to pressure the government. ‘well-educated people have broader interests In elections beyond personal eo nomic stakes. The college-educated person—wealthy or not—is more interested. better informed, and more likely 10 participate in elections. As we discussed in Chapter 7, education provides a sense of participation and an abstract intellectual sity, which makes people more likely to follow political news and feel involved. Despite federal laws and black organizations, black voting rates are lower than The gap may eventually close as black income and education levels rise. Act overcame some of the barriers placed in the way of black fly in the South. Many blacks have gone through palitical con sciousness: 4 the value of participation and voting. Some previ ously racist white politicians got the message and became respectful toward their black constituents. Latinos faced similar problems and also showed low turnouts. Race, accordingly, i still a factor in U.S, election tumnout hey vote less. About half of U.S, citizens eighteen to twenty-five are current ot registered 10- vate. You economically uninvolved with election outcomes, When they start paying taxcs, they become more interested, Focused on the concerns of youth. many have no lime or interest in political questions, which seem abstract and distan g people, with litte income and property, also fee In 1971 the Twenty-sixth Amendment lowered the U.S. voting age from twen ty-one to eighteen at the same time t s were similar: The newly enfranchised young pec not vate as much 2s their elders, and when they did, theit votes were little different. Middle-aged and older people are more likely to vote than the young, probably because tle middle person is at peak earning pawer, and the oki person is concerned bout So al Security and Medicare. In recent U.S. elections, those over seventy at franchised women only in 1971.) Since 1920, when suffrage ted franchise suffrage Ril aus E _ Ens ae ‘Tue PuzeLe OF EDUCATION AND VoTIN studies agrce that education makes people more perticipetory. But dec appened precisely as U.S. educational levels grew. America has s percentage al both lelucated citizens. That should make us very participatory and ning US, tarout numbers of [No one has cracked this puzzle, Edusation may not mean what it used to, The sh US. college nowadays, is 1 shave diluted its former elite status. A college degree, in terms of geting a job igh-school diploma before World War I. Many majors are vocational or not awaken curlosty or knowledge of the nation and world ureer-related and Joes net mean Whatil sed to, Even well-educate 1 be turned off by negative campaigning ans are dirty. (In 2004, however, negative ads seemed to have boosted ine in politcal participation, tal theory, in all he indus. ice between parties and candidates, Potential voters 1 all poli Postmaterialism offers another «x ti jons the economy has moved away from manufacturing and inta knowledge a mation inclustries. With this has come a shift of values, away from society and toward sell. Only diet, outdoor activities, and music. So. materialism theory is accurate, we might and conelu ed personal things matter in the New Age: relationships, car he United States, the wed and then even reversed: in recent U.S. elections women have voted more ap between men’s and women's voier turnout nar PLACE OF RESIDENCE City dwellers are more likely to vote than rural re People who have lived in the same place fc volved in local affairs and are more likely to participate in groups and activities n the community ‘Yoter turnout in the U.S. South is somewha an in the North and West, a reflection of lower living standards and.a lack of party competition. But the South and its politics have changed, and ne that of o 5, Other nations are also characterized by regional difle {the Loire River bave a tumout inthe South is approaching postmatertalism Theory t = How Do Peopte Vote? The re scan be di vided int ‘erm influence and can affect a person’s votes for his or her lifetime, Shott-teer varlables may cause a person to Vote ane way for one eleetian but not four years Later. Margaret Thatcher shrewdly called British elections in L983 tw cateh the glow of military victory in the Falklands and a and disarray in Labour's t fer Conservatives wan both times, Sim 1976 in the United States, Jimmy Carter benefited [rom a “morality factor” awak: ened by the Watergate scandal. Economic conditions matter; the 1992 downturn hurt incumbent P rarely rma sident Bush. Such short-term variables loyally Party identification— any fee J one pariy ever many years. Strong party identifiers hab party: weak identifiers can be swayed to vote for another party. Peop| ID are up for grabs is something that people carry iy vote or that fh no party y Ie that par. 4 may shift theit votes every election. Remeniber, party identification Long-term voter attachment to a given party arty ID Is heavily influer arly in life. Some children proclaim they are Democrats or Republicans and may never change what they learned from their parents, like the early learning of a religion. It is also easier 10 vore along party lines, especially important with complicated U.S. ballots. Party ID is a ‘stand ng decision” on how to wore. Strong identifiers feel good about their party's can= didates and view other candidates with suspicion. Party ID is important wo electoral stability. People who stick largely to one party allow politicians to anticipate what people want and to try to deliver it. We ID produces great volatility In voting. as citizens shiit their votes to easily, often in response to clever TV ads. Political scientists worry that declining party 1D in the United States bodes ill for democracy Party identification in much of Europe and Japan used to be stronger thar in the United States, but the difference may be fading, Britain, Germany, Swe den, Japan, and other countries were long characterized by consistent splits be= tween their two biggest parties. Typically, the swing fram one major party to another ranged feom only about | percent to 5 percent, ax most voters stuck with the same party. The reason: Strong party ID anchored voters to parties ‘with the decline in ¢lass voting (sec below) and rise of postmaterialism, p. ID has been fading and volatility increasing, sometimes to U.S. levels. French, voters, on the other hand, were even less likely than Americans to party 1D, partly the result of the splitting, merging, and renaming that French parties engage in. Such changes do not give party IDs time to-take roat, Result; French, voting is and always has been volatile ® Wuo Votes How? Using the social categories discussed in Chapter 8 (on public opinion) and earlier in this chapter (on voting turnout), political scientists can generally describe what Kinds of people tend to identify with the variaus parties. No social category votes 100: percent for a given pany; people often disregard group norms, This fact ac counts for poor Republicans and rich Democrats. [f mare than hall of a given so- al category votes for ane party, there is prabably a significant relationship between the social category and the party: {three-quarters votes for a party, there is a strong relationship. We are making statements here that indicate a tendency, not an ab solute relationshi Practicing politicians and political scientists call a tendency in a group to iden: tify with a certain party a voting blac, The candidates’ strategy Is then to secure ‘enough blocs to deliver a plurality of the electorate, and they tailor their campaign to win over the blocs most likely to vote for them. The concept of voting blocs is an oversimplification: there is no such thing as a solid bloc swing. Percentage of voters swite class voting Tendency of a given sacal class 10 vote for sent its Interests voting bloc Group with a marked tendency 221 TENDENCY STATEMENTS | [Lithasstoghowthat one thing causes anor, expecially nthe scl sence. hen te bet we do is show how one thing correlates or covaries with another, For example, we have noted how rich countries are democracies and poor no, but ths is only approximately true. There are many exceptions, so instead of saying “f.” we sty “tends 0” Further, which causes which? Does being | rich: make countries democratic? Or does being democratic make counties ri } Most social sciemtists are cutious about causal staements—X causes Y—andd say that awa Indirect and complex. X might give ese to Q. which in {umn influences Z ta mave in the direction of ¥. In our example, wealth creates. large middle class, which likes education and acticulates ite in terests, which in tum undermines authoritarian rate. Simple it ain't ve study is multicausal: & Q, and R workts | more—percapita GDF, education, or interest-group formation—o the foundi all matter and are hard disentangle. They tend 10 come as a package. Instes then statements, where we find X ss also that this connection is rarely one-to-one: Where ove find X, two-thirds ofthe time we find ¥. Thiss uch of ih ther lead 4o Z, Which matters ‘of democracy? They {making causal state called a tendency statement, the standard fare-of the social sciences, For example: “Poor countiles tend to not be democracies, butseveral are." And remember, individuals often defy the tendency of their group: “African Americans vate Republican, strongly t0 9 Social class is one determinant of party identification and voting behavier. Even tr the United States, where class distinctions are blurred, blue-collar warkers tend t register and vote Democratic, especially in families in which breadwinners arc anion members, Notice in Table 12.1 on page 222 how vot under $30,000 tended to go to Kerry in the 2004 election; higher brackets went t Bush, [n most Eurapean countries, this te connected to social-democratic or labor parties, The Swedish and German anions, respectively the LO and DGB, persuade most of their members 19 vate S0- cial Democrat. Better ns, French, German, and Swedes ikély to sup. consider themselves middle class, have a family tradition, or have individuc victions—vote for conservative parties. Sometimes majority of the U.S. and British working elass vote, respectively, Republican and Conservative. Conversely, some middie» and even upper-class peopie—be King: class origins, have a family tradition, or picked up liberal views in college—vote for parties an 3 making something bap HMothen statement Says that two things ave linked: Where this happens so does that. tendency Finding that twa things are linked. but not perfe m2 Bush Kerry “4 1s 4 0 “7 “o 19 0 8 31 u 51 4 34 0 05 High school graduate “4 ‘es than high schoo! 38 35 ily income 575,000-100,000 56 a 530,000-49,999 $$20,000-29,999 8 as he left. Such people are especially important in providing working-class parties with educated leadership y erossover—working class g ns nd middle class going left—dilutes

    You might also like