Who Votes? How Do They Vote? What Do They Want? MU MVZ 449 Spring 2010 Dave McCuan Masaryk University Int'l Comparisons ­ Voter TO International Comparisons Institutional factors that influence turnout: ­ Registration/voting laws ­ Scheduling of Election Day ­ Two-party system ­ Competitiveness ­ Voter fatigue 2008 Primary/Caucus Turnout State VEP Turnout Rate State VEP Turnout Rate New Hampshire 52.5% Washington 27.3% California 41.7% Maryland 27.3% Ohio 40.5% Virginia 26.9% Oregon 39.7% Mississippi 26.5% Vermont 39.2% Tennessee 26.4% Massachusetts 38.7% Arkansas 26.0% Wisconsin 36.5% Montana 24.7% Indiana 36.1% Utah 23.7% Florida 33.8% Delaware 23.7% West Virginia 33.5% Arizona 23.7% Illinois 33.2% Nebraska 21.0% North Carolina 32.8% Michigan 20.2% Georgia 32.7% New York 19.9% Missouri 32.6% Connecticut 19.8% Pennsylvania 32.5% Louisiana 19.3% Alabama 31.7% Idaho 18.1% South Carolina 30.4% Iowa 16.3% New Mexico 30.4% Nevada 9.5% New Jersey 30.2% Minnesota 7.2% South Dakota 28.9% North Dakota 5.9% Oklahoma 28.7% Colorado 5.5% Rhode Island 28.5% Alaska 5.0% District of Columbia 28.5% Maine 4.9% Kentucky 28.4% Kansas 4.3% Texas 28.3% Wyoming 2.8% Source: Michael McDonald, GMU Why people vote * Civic duty? * Rational choice perspective: vote when benefits>costs ­ Down's Paradox of Voting * Costs of voting are high * Benefits are low * Is it ever rational to vote? Who Votes? SES Youth Vote by State State % of 18-24 yearolds State % of 18-24 year-olds Minnesota 69 New York 45 Wisconsin 63 Georgia 45 Iowa 62 California 45 Maine 59 Nevada 44 New Hampshire 58 Alabama 44 Kentucky 57 Oklahoma 44 Ohio 56 Pennsylvania 43 Michigan 54 South Carolina 43 Missouri 53 North Carolina 43 Washington 52 Arizona 42 Mississippi 52 Illinois 42 Utah 51 New Mexico 42 Maryland 51 Nebraska 42 New Jersey 50 Indiana 41 Oregon 49 Virginia 41 Colorado 49 Connecticut 41 Idaho 48 Kansas 40 Louisiana 48 Texas 39 Massachusetts 46 Tennessee 39 Florida 46 Arkansas 36 West Virginia 46 Who Votes? 1. Resources * Time * Money * Civic skills 2. Psychological engagement * Political interest * Efficacy * Sense of stake in outcome 3. Recruitment * Being asked to participate Net Result: Bias in political participation Decline in Turnout Calculating Turnout * Turnout = # of Votes Cast Voting Age Population (VAP) ­ But Census VAP includes * Non-Citizens * Ineligible felons (depends on state law) * People who can't register because moved * So, should be: Turnout = # of Votes Cast Eligible Voters Turnout Rate for Eligible Voters Why is Turnout Declining? * Puzzle of participation: Factors predicting turnout have increased in recent decades, but turnout has declined ­ Education levels are higher ­ Institutional barrier reduced * Voting Rights Act * 24th Amendment * poll taxes and literacy tests abolished * shortened state and local residency requirements * Motor Voter * bilingual ballots * easier absentee voting ­ So why the decline?????? Decline of Partisanship 77% 61% 23% 39% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Partisans Independents Increasing Cynicism: "Public officials don't care much what people like me think." 35% 50% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 Percent of Negative Televised Presidential Advertisements, 1952-2000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 % Negative Decline in Daily Newspaper Readership 45% 78.4% 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Percent Watching Nightly News at least 3 days/week 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Years PercentMarried Decline in Marriage Party Contact by Voter Registration 13.6 17.6 46.8 24.1 00% 05% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Election Year PercentContactedbyaPoliticalParty Not Registered Registered Expansion of Suffrage in 20th Century * 1920: 19th Amendment gives women right to vote * 1924: U.S. Act recognizes Native Americans as citizens * 1961: 23rd Amendment gives DC right to vote in federal elections * 1964: 24th Amendment prohibits poll taxes (federal elections) * 1965: Voting Rights Act ­ 1966 courts ruled laws applied to state elections * 1971: 26th Amendment lowered voting age to 18 Is Low Turnout a Problem? NO: ­ Indicates satisfaction ­ Smaller is smarter ­ Interests of nonvoters can still be represented ­ Elections don't matter anyway Is Low Turnout A Problem? Yes: ­ Voters unrepresentative ­ Democratic legitimacy ­ Alienation from government Campaigns & the Individual Vote Decision Do Campaigns Matter? The CW * Pundits, Journalists, Candidates: Yes * Academic conventional wisdom: No Traditional Academic Perspective 1. Individual votes are predictable 2. In aggregate, effects cancel out 3. Dynamics during campaign are predictable 4. Outcomes are predictable Influence of Party ID Bush Gore Republicans 90.6% 9.4% Democrats 9.8% 90.2% Source: NES cumulative file Bush v. Gore Total Number of Spots Aired Nationwide (including candidate, party,& interest group ads) 119,159 126,584 Pro-Gore Pro-Bush Source: Ken Goldstein 2003 Bush and Kerry followed each other 20000150001000050000 Democratic Spots 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 RepublicanSpots 2004 CMAG TV Spots by Market Caution with Forecasting Models * Electoral College predictions! * Not hard to get close given margin in presidential elections * What measure of economy is relevant? * Not necessarily inconsistent with "campaigns matter" perspective Do campaigns matter? Yes, but with constraints * Structural and campaign explanations not mutually exclusive ­ Predictable behavior campaigns don't matter * In close elections, small effects matter * Campaigns influence some voters more than others Who are the persuadable voters? * Soccer moms, NASCAR dads? * Undecided voters? * Political independents? * Ideological moderates? 2008 predictions were: * Hockey moms? * Millenials? * Working-class whites? * Kevin Costner's film? Swing VOTERS Little/No Interest in Campaign Unlikely to Vote All Respondents 11% 13% Moderates 18% 22% Independents 21% 25% Undecided 32% 39% 3 Key Arguments ­ The persuadable voters are cross-pressured * Esp. partisans who disagree with party on pol. issue ­ Strategic candidates will try to exploit the tensions that make campaigns matter * Will use "wedge issues" to appeal to these persuadable voters ­ Today's information environment encourages use of wedge issues * Information and technology shape the candidates' issue messages Challenging Conventional Wisdom 1. American voters are polarized along partisan and ideological lines 2. The persuadable voters are uninformed, unengaged, and not policy-motivated 3. Candidates talk about divisive issues as part of a "base mobilization" strategy A Nation Divided by Party and Ideology? Incongruent Neutral Congruent Faith-based Initiatives 36% 24% 40% School Prayer 36% 21% 43% Abortion 35% 65% School Vouchers 35% 17% 48% Partial Birth Abortion 35% 65% Drug Imports 34% 17% 49% NCLB Education policy 30% 28% 42% Tort Reform 29% 21% 50% Gay Marriage 29% 16% 56% Gun Control 27% 10% 62% Environment vs Oil 27% 20% 53% Stem Cell 26% 23% 51% Business Regulation 25% 31% 44% Health Care 25% 23% 52% Union Support 23% 26% 51% Social Security Privatization 22% 28% 50% Government Aid to Poor 22% 27% 51% Affirmative Action 21% 27% 52% Tax Cuts vs. Minimum Wage 20% 20% 61% Multilateralism 15% 30% 55% Use of Force/Terrorism 14% 27% 59% Iraq War Evaluation 13% 12% 75% Economy Evaluation 11% 24% 65% Average All Issues 26% 20% 54% Extent of Policy Disagreement across Issues (2004) Cross-pressures in 2004 Note: Only includes crosspressures on issues the voters consider "very" or "extremely" important to them personally of 10 salient issues from campaign (abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, gun control, affirmative action, environment, health care, aid to the poor, minimum wage, and social security privatization). All Partisans Strong Partisans Politically Attentive College Graduates Politically Aware Completely Congruent 33% 35% 38% 43% 42% Cross-Pressured on at least 1 issue 67% 65% 62% 57% 58% Cross-Pressured on more than 1 issue 40% 36% 35% 30% 31% Cross-pressured on 5 or more issues 4% 3% 5% 3% 3% Average 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.2 Sample size 1872 1113 684 450 620 How many potentially persuadable? Percent of Citizenry Percent of Electorate Percent of Electorate (Politically Aware) Cross-pressured Partisans 26% 27% 25% Cross-pressued Partisan Leaners 8% 9% 5% Policy-Conflicted Pure Independents 13% 9% 4% Total Persuadable 46% 46% 34% Defection by Extent of Policy Disagreement 35.5% 3.2% 29.1% 3.8% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Proportion of Crossed Issues DefectionRate 2004 Election 2000 Election Predicting Defections: 2004 Presidential Election Note: Political knowledge, strength of partisanship, race, gender, income, education held at global means or modes. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Less Aware Most Aware Less Attentive Most Attentive No Visits Many Campaign Visits Non Battleground Battleground Change in Predicted Probability of Defecting Theoretical Expectations: Consequences for Candidate Behavior * In presidential race, candidates must attract persuadable voters to win election * To influence persuadable voters, will try to prime wedge issues ­ Expectation contrasts with: * Median Voter Theorem * Base mobilization strategy * Information environment and communication technologies shape messages that candidates use to target persuadable voters ­ Will moderate message when have less information or when communicating to heterogeneous audience "Ground War" vs. "Air War" General Wedge Issue Moral Wedge Issue General Wedge Issue Moral Wedge Issue Candidate Funded 30% 9% 0% 0% Party Funded 23% 7% 3% 3% Both 25% 8% 1% 1% Direct Mail Television Advertising Moral Issues: abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research Wedge Issues: moral issues plus other divisive issues, like affirmative action, immigration, environment, etc. Targeting the Base? Pure Mobilization Appeal Volunteer Appeal Fundraising Appeal Both Party Labels Own Party Label Issue Appeal Candidate-Funded 0% 14% 9% 0% 9% 70% Party-Funded 5% 4% 10% 11% 50% 69% Both 5% 5% 10% 10% 48% 70% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Pro-Bush Moral Appeal Pro-Bush Wedge Appeal Pro-Bush Targeted Appeal Pro-Kerry Moral Appeal Pro-Kerry Wedge Appeal Pro-Kerry Targeted Appeal Strong Democrat Weak/Lean Democrat Independent Weak/Lean Republican Strong Republican Base Base Base Base Base Base Conclusions * Recap: ­ Candidates must win "swing voters" to win White House ­ These "swing voters" are often cross-pressured rather than moderate ­ Candidates try to win over these cross-pressured voters by priming wedge issues that advantage them over their opponent ­ The information environment allows for greater use of wedge strategy * Potential implications of micro-targeting & changing demographics: ­ Fragmentation of campaign policy agenda ­ Polarization of candidates ­ Exacerbation of political inequality ­ Superficial politics ­ Potential crisis in governance