Models of Voting Behavior Dr. Bradley Best Asst. Professor Political Science Buena Vista University

Two basic concerns: Turnout (“Who votes?”) Key questions: What are the characteristics and attitudes of voters vs. nonvoters? What explains historical variation in voter turnout? Direction (“Who votes for whom?”) What are the characteristics and attitudes of persons voting for Republican / Democrat / Independent candidates? What accounts for the success / failure of the Democrats / Republicans / Independents in national elections?

Quick Look at the Data: Who Votes? Who Votes for Whom? Turnout http://www.fec.gov/pages/htmlto5.htm [’60-’96] http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/Facts5.html [Sex Differences] http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting.html [Census Bureau Report on Turnout in 2000 Pres. Election] Direction http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/Facts5.html [Gender]

Three Models of Voting Behavior Sociological Model (Columbia Model) Social-Psychological Model (Michigan Model) Economic / Rational Choice Model (Rochester Model)

Sociological Model Basic Idea: What you are = vote choice Key foundational studies: Lazarsfeld, Berelson, Gaudet (1944) The People’s Choice; Berelson, Lazarsfeld, McPhee (1954) Voting Fixed sociological characteristics are useful predictors of vote choice Age Region (North, South, New England, West) Urban / Rural Gender Race / Ethnicity Occupational status Socioeconomic status Religious orientations

A few observations (Alan Abramowitz, Voice of the People (2004)): “Race gap” is large – Whites / African Americans vote differently American population is aging Median age in 1970 – 28 yrs Median age in 2000 – 35.8 yrs Population shifts to South and West (most recent census – 11 electoral votes lost in NE, NW) – this trend favors Republicans Increasing minority population Lag time between immigration and voter participation “Citizenship gap” in minority populations “SES gap” in vote choice has narrowed Workforce is increasingly female, white collar “marriage gap” among women – married women more likely to vote for Republican candidate than single women Gender gap – women still prefer Democratic candidate Sexual preference gap – gay/lesbian voters align with Dem. party Religious polarization – Protestant Evangelicals vote Republican

Social-Psychological Model Basic Idea: Psychological processes shape vote choice Key Foundational Study: Campbell, Converse, Miller, and Stokes (1960) The American Voter [data from 1952, 1956 elections] Party Identification (“Party ID”) – a “long term” factor (linked to parents ID) steering vote choice Itself shaped by sociological factors Relatively stable over time Lens through which we view issues, shapes the images of candidates (short term factors)

A closer look at “short term” factors (may be shaped by party ID): issue orientations (“revisionist” perspectives suggest this is more important than originally thought) – may cause a vote in direction not predicted by party ID candidate images (qualities ascribed to candidates reflecting voter perceptions) Evaluation of party  Each “short term” factor is potentially shaped by the “long term” impact of Party ID; some political scientists believe that “short-term” factors also influence partisan loyalties

A few observations regarding Party ID: Democrats still have advantage in terms of #s of identifiers (Yet, in recent decades, Dem advantage has eroded.) Democrats more likely to “defect” Demographics of Republican identifiers favors turnout Independents less likely to vote Rise of Republican strength in South, region of most significant population growth (11 electoral vote increase after 2000 census) Strength of party attachment  increased probability of voting Voters not especially sophisticated or interested, relying on party labels as cues to vote choice Most Americans demonstrate low ideological constraint

Economic / Rational Choice Model Key Foundational Studies: Anthony Downs (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy; V.O. Key (1966) The Responsible Electorate Assumption that people see vote as a resource to be “spent” for something of value (i.e., a candidate choice that reflects their positions on key issues) Assumption that voters rationally calculate most efficient use of vote choice (maximize increase in personal utility) May also mean that voters seek to reduce the “costs” of voting Possible consequences: search for “shortcuts” to a vote choice – e.g., single issue voting); voter registration process may discourage turnout