1. Research Examples and Topics Chapter 1: Janet Buttolph Johnson

2. Section I: Who Votes, Who Doesn’t Question: Why do some people participate more than others? One way to address this question is to ask why people do or do not vote. Voting: Two generalizations about voting: 1) Voting varies by class: poor participate less than affluent, educated 2) Number of active voters has declined since the 1950s. …

3. Section I: Who Votes, Who Doesn’t Burnham: selective class mobilization: Decline in voting is sharpest among the poor and working class. Wealthy are voting at the same rate. Poor are abandoning politics. Why? Parties have declined, and poor and working class (having less education, information and access) depended on parties for “cues and motivation.” Show Burnham supports his theory Burnham supports his theory with empirical data: turnout rates for/by social Strata. …

4. Section I: Who Votes, Who Doesn’t Burnham creates controversy and debate: Others have challenged his idea, asserting that a class bias in voting has not increased. The problem is one of measurement: Voting rates are typically measured by dividing the number of people who voted with the total number of eligible voters: Determining eligible voters: Census Bureau has a measurement: Voting as Population (VAP) …

5. Section I: Who Votes, Who Doesn’t But, as McDonald and Popkin argue: “approach includes those who are ineligible to vote, such as non-citizens, felons…” (8-9) No decline in voting nationally, and an increase in the South McDonald and Popkin use a more accurate figure and discover no decline since 1972, and increase in the South. …

6. Youth Voting and Parties Local Parties and Electoral Mobilization (166) Historically, parties were key to high turnouts. US Youth Voting (VT) in Comparative terms History of Voter Turnout in the US (167) Methodological Questions: Defining Voters Defining Youth: 18-24 or 18-29?

7. Turnout Levels Methodological Questions: Defining Voters: VAP v. VEP VAP: Voting Age Population “Voting-age population…consists of everyone age 18 and older residing in the United States…” VEP: Voting Eligible Population Defined by those who are eligible to vote (“excludes: non-citizens and ineligible felons, and [includes] overseas eligible voters…”)* Defining Youth: 18-24 or 18-29? * Source: M. McDonald, http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm.

8. Turnout Levels Source: M. McDonald, http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm.

9. Turnout Levels Defining Youth: (18-24 or 18-29?) Presidential Elections, 1927-2008

10. Turnout Levels Defining Youth: (18-24 or 18-29?) Presidential Elections, 1927-2006 Source: CIRCLE (The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (Tufts University)

11. Turnout Levels Youth Turnout (18-29): Massachusetts, Presidential Elections, 1974-2004.

12. Rational Choice Approach to Voting: use of formal modeling Formal Model: a set of assumptions about political actors: they are rational, and want to maximize their “utility” (things they value). Conclusion: Rational person will decide that it is logically not to vote: the odds of affecting the election is out weighed by the costs of participation. …

13. Section II: The Effects of Campaign Advertising on Voters Question: what is effective campaign advertising on voters? 1) Little impact (people can screen messages) 2) Stimulates participation 3) Negative ads depress turnout, “demobilize” people …

14. The Effects of Campaign Advertising on Voters

17. Negative Ads in the Mobilization: Attack Ad Article Ansolabehere et al. (AISV) published a 1994 study on “attack ads” Hypothesis: Negative ads depress turnout Method: Part Two 1) Controlled Experiment: expose group of voters to three conditions. a. Positive ad. b. No ad. c. Negative ad. Finding: those exposed to neg ads were 5% less likely to vote.

18. Negative Ads in Demobilization Method (Part Two) 2) measured tone of 34 Senate races in 1992: 1) Calculated turnout 2) Calculated “roll-off” rate: those motivated, but did not vote. Finding: turnout was 4% higher in positive races. Roll-off was 2.4 % higher in negative camps. They conclude: drop off since 1960 in voting might be result of negative campaigning. (16) …

19. Negative Ads in Demobilization Others have challenges results: Kahn and Kenny: found that negative ads did not have a uniform effect on the propensity to vote. Objective: test relationship between tenor of campaigns and propensity to vote. Method: used survey responses to 1990 National Election Studies.

20. Negative Ads in Demobilization Kahn and Kenny Senate Election Study studied sample TV ads from Senate campaigns and newspaper articles. Finding: neg ads did not have a the uniform effect on the propensity to vote. Rather, their effect depended on political predisposition: Independents, people less interested in politics were stimulated by media coverage but depressed by negative ads.

21. Negative Ads in Demobilization Another critique:: Wattenberg et al. Theory: neg ads do not depress turnout. Rather, for unlikely voters turnout was higher among those who “recalled” either a positive or negative ad. (17) Method: Looked at survey and polling data from 1992 and 1996 presidential Elections (indicated whether they had seen ads or not). Finding: 1992: recall of neg. ads boosted turnout 1996: no effect on turnout Anosolabehere at al respond: Recall is a poor measure since it favors those who are likely to vote.

22. Section III: US Foreign Policy Issues: Isolationism and the American public Theories: Nincic tests two theories in article “Domestic Costs, the US Public, and Isolationist Calculus:” 1) “Elastic Band:” General public is not interested in foreign affairs unless when “stretched’ to respond to major…events.” (19) 2) Domestic Costs: public generally favors involvement or engagement, but this support fluctuates in relation to perceived “domestic costs.” …

23. Isolationism and the American Public Nincic’s Method 1) Used responses to poll conducted since 1945: it asked “would it be best for the future of the country if we take an active part in world affairs or if we stay out of world affairs.” Findings: support for engagement was consistently above 60%, did not drop after the fall of the USSR, and was similar to levels during heights of the cold war. …

24. Impact of Education, Unemployment and Presidential Rhetoric However, when survey question changes, responses change: In this poll it gave respondents the option of focusing on national issues, it also asked for details about the respondent. (education level, employment status) Support for accuracy was foreign policy by education level Nincic found that those with more education have a greater commitment to world affairs. Support for actors whose foreign policy but an important rate, rate of inflation and president emphasis on world affairs Changes in unemployment had the biggest impact, twice that of inflation, educated most influenced by inflation. …

25. Use of Military Force Herman, Tetlock, Visser in their article “Mass Public Decisions to Go to War.” Question: what impact does “individual dispositions” and the specifics of the foreign policy “situations” have on support for foreign policy.

26. Use of Military Force Herman, Tetlock, Visser: Research Design: 1) “Individual Dispositions” referred to whether someone was: -International/isolationist -Military Assertive/Accommodation and Cooperation -Ideology: Conservative/Liberal 2) “Situations” included: -Relative power of US vs. adversary -Perceived motives of adversary and their connection to US interests -Political culture of adversary

27. Use of Military Force Methods: To test these variables, they conducted a “national survey” in which they varied the “situations.” Findings: Situations People likely to support use of force when US interests are engaged, when the attacker is perceived as powerful, when the attack is unprovoked, when the victim is a democracy…

28. Use of Military Force Findings: How situations interacted with “dispositions”? Graph 1: when US interests are engaged, respondents view on isolationism has little effect on willingness to use force, when US interests not involved, willingness decreases as isolationism increases Graph 2: how military assertiveness is affected by identity of attacker. Graph 3: how ideology affects willingness to use force to protect certain countries who are attacked.