HOW WE VOTE WHY WE VOTE AND WHY IT MATTERS

HOW WE VOTE, WHY WE VOTE AND WHY IT MATTERS DR. MARK KELSO QUEENS UNIVERSITY OF CHARLOTTE WILDACRES PRESENTATION FOR SENIOR SCHOLARS MAY 16, 2007 KEY QUESTION • Is non-voting a problem in the United States? • Arguments: 1. Non-voting occurs for two reasons: a. Procedural: Difficulty of the process b. Attitudinal: False belief that votes do not matter 2. Non-voting leads to: a. lack of representation for significant groups in our society b. has significant effects on policy choices EXPANSION OF VOTING RIGHTS 1787: At time of Constitution, voting was largely restricted to property- owning whites males, although states could set their own requirements (for example, New Jersey let women vote from 1790 to 1807) 1820s and 1830s: Elimination of property-owning requirements (full white male suffrage) 1869: Wyoming allows voting rights for women 1870: 15th Amendment extended voting rights to all men regardless of race or ethnicity (variety of devices kept minorities from voting in many places) 1920: 19th Amendment guarantees voting rights for women 1924: Native Americans made citizens and given voting rights 1961: 23rd Amendment gives voting rights to residents of DC 1964: 24th Amendment ends the poll tax 1965: Voting Right Act eliminates literacy tests, uses federal officials to limit harassment and intimidation of minority voters 1971: 26th Amendment---18 to 20 year-olds guaranteed voting rights VOTING PARTICIPATION IN US--HISTORICAL TRENDS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 1860: 1864: 1868: 1872: 1876: 1880: 1884: 1888: 1892: 1896: 1900: 1904: 1908: 81.8 76.8 81.0 72.4 83.8 81.0 79.0 80.9 76.1 79.7 73.8 65.6 65.8 1912: 1916: 1920: 1924: 1928: 1932: 1936: 1940: 1944: 1948: 1952: 1956: 1960: 59.0 61.8 49.3 48.9 56.9 52.4 56.0 58.9 56.0 51.1 61.6 59.3 62.8 1964: 1968: 1972: 1976: 1980: 1984: 1988: 1992: 1996: 2000: 2004: 61.9 60.9 55.2 53.5 54.0 53.1 50.2 55.9 49.0 51.3 60.7 CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS 1862: 1866: 1870: 1874: 1878: 1882: 1886: 1890: 1894: 1898: 1902: 1906: 1910: 64.7 71.0 66.9 64.8 65.1 65.7 63.9 64.6 67.4 60.1 55.6 51.2 51.7 1914: 1918: 1922: 1926: 1930: 1934: 1938: 1942: 1946: 1950: 1954: 1958: 1962: 50.1 39.9 35.7 32.9 36.7 44.5 44.6 33.9 38.8 43.0 43.1 44.5 47.5 1966: 1970: 1974: 1978: 1982: 1986: 1990: 1994: 1998: 2002: 2004: 48.4 46.6 38.2 37.2 39.8 36.4 36.5 38.8 32.9 39.0 40.4 SOURCE: Mackie and Rose, International Almanac of Electoral History, 1989 (1860-1928); World Almanac 2006 (1932-2004) SOURCE: Mackie and Rose, International Almanac of Electoral History, 1989 (1862-1962); Federal Election Commission (1966-1994); Statistical Abstract of the United States 2001 (1998); Washington Post (2002); CNN (2006) VOTING PARTICIPATION IN US BY STATE---2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION SOURCE: www.census.gov TOP TEN 1. Minnesota 2. Wisconsin 3. Maine 4. New Hampshire 5. Oregon 6. Alaska 6. South Dakota 8. Iowa 9. Ohio 10. Vermont 73.3 71.8 71.6 68.2 67.0 66.9 66.9 66.3 64.8 64.2 BOTTOM 10 1. Hawaii 2. Texas 3. California 4. Nevada 5. Arizona 6. New York 6. Arkansas 8. South Carolina 9. DC 10. Rhode Island 44.5 45.7 47.2 47.9 48.0 50.8 50.8 51.0 51.3 52.2 NOTE: North Carolina, at 54.5, ranked 36th INTERNATIONAL VOTING PARTICIPATION sources: www.electionworld.org www.parties-and-elections.de • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1. Australia 2. South Africa 3. Chile 4. France 5. Denmark 6. Italy 7. Brazil 8 . Sweden 9. Netherlands 10. Germany 11. Argentina 12. Spain 13. New Zealand 95.4 89.3 87.7 85.0 84.5 83.6 83.2 82.0 80.1 77.7 77.6 77.2 75.5 14. South Korea 15. Uganda 16. Israel 17. Russia 18. Ireland 19. UK 20. Poland 21. Costa Rica 22. United States 23. Japan 24. India 25. Jamaica 70.8 70.1 67.8 64.4 63.0 61.3 61.1 61.0 60.7 59.9 59.7 56.8 WHO VOTES IN THE US source: www.census.gov HIGH VOTERS College Graduates Over 65 45 to 64 Some College Midwesterners Employed White Women Northeasterners 35 to 44 Southerners African-Americans Males Not in Labor Force 74.2 68.9 66.6 66.1 65.0 60.6 60.3 60.1 58.6 56.9 56.4 56.3 56.3 56.2 LOW VOTERS Less than 8 yrs of education 23.6 Hispanics 28.0 Some High School 34.6 18-20 41.0 21-24 42.5 Unemployed 46.4 25-34 46.9 High School Grads 52.4 Westerners 54.4 WHY PEOPLE DON’T VOTE PROCEDURAL FACTORS ATTITUDINAL FACTORS 1. Difficulty of Registration 1. Perception that Vote Does Not Matter (Lack of Political Efficacy) 2. Difficulty of Voting 3. Frequency of Elections 2. Decline of Party Identification Lack of Competition Distrust of Politicians Lack of Choice 4. Distrust of Process 3. 4. 5. VOTING PROCEDURES ARE GETTING EASIER • • • • On-line, National Registration Motor-Voter Same Day Registration in Some States No Excuse, Early Voting in Many States (including North Carolina) • Vote by Mail (Oregon) This suggests a need to focus on the attitudinal reasons for non-voting WHY VOTING MATTERS Voters get more material benefits from government (demonstrated by studies of African-Americans in the South after the Civil Rights Movement) Voters have stronger protections for rights (also demonstrated by studies of the South in the post-Civil Rights era) Voters are more likely to feel that the policies of government reflect their beliefs and values (various studies) Voting reduces government corruption (studies have shown that states with lower voting participation generally have higher levels of political corruption) Voting increases faith in the political system and reduces political alienation (various studies) Political participation is better for your health (2002 British study) THEORIES OF VOTING Sociological Theory: Berelson, Lazarsfeld, McPhee, Voting (1954) 1. Demographic characteristics determine voting 2. Voting patterns stable over time Partisanship Model: Campbell, Converse, Miller, Stokes, The American Voter (1960) 1. Psychological reactions to parties, issues and candidates determine voting 2. Partisanship is the most important influence on voting Rational Choice: Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (1957) 1. Voters make "rational" choices---select candidate that will provide them with the most benefits (voters are self-interested) 2. Parties move to the center to attract more voters 3. As parties move toward center, non-voting will increase What Does the Data Tell Us? National Election Studies (since 1952) 1. Partisan and Sociological Factors have declined in importance 2. Economic and other performance factors have increased in importance 3. Interest group identification increasingly important 4. Candidate personality also plays a role HOW WE VOTE • Arrow's Impossibility Theorem (1972)---for more than two choices, any voting system will produce paradoxes, outcomes that violate the true wishes of the majority • Plurality system: each voter chooses one candidate; most votes wins; majority not needed; most widely used in US; most unfair--encourages people to vote against true preference to avoid "wasting" vote Proportional Representation: each voter chooses a party; percentage of seats at stake allocated by percentage of vote; sometimes a minimum threshold of votes required; gives representation to minorities; criticized for allowing extremists into process and creating instability French Run-off: All candidates contest first round; if no candidate gets 50% or more, top two advance to next second round (also used in Louisiana) Borda Count: rank all candidates from first to last; award points for each ranking; highest point total wins; like college basketball and football polls; may be the fairest system • • • HOW WE VOTE (cont.) • Approval Voting: Voters give single point to all acceptable candidates; candidates with the most points wins; selects "least objectionable" leader; UN uses to select Secretary- General Cumulative Voting: Every voter has as many votes as candidates; voter can distribute votes among candidates are give them all to one person; improves chances for minority interests to be represented; used by some corporations to elect Board of Directors • • Instant Runoff: Voters rank order candidates; candidate with fewest first place votes eliminated; first place votes of eliminated candidate given to the second choice of those voters; process continues until a candidate gets a majority; used in some nations; has been considered by some states (Alaska, Vermont) MOST IMPORTANT POINT: Since no method is perfect, one must choose the criteria to maximize, and then choose the system that best maximizes these criteria • CYCLES OF PARTY DOMINANCE 1. 1788-1860 (72 Years): Democrat/Democratic-Republican Dominance a. Won 12 of 18 elections b. Cycle ended by Civil War 2. 1860-1932 (72 years): Republican Dominance a. Won 14 of 18 elections b. Cycle Ended by Great Depression 3. 1932-1968 (36 years): Democratic Dominance a. Won 7 of 9 elections b. Cycle ended by civil unrest surrounding Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam War 4. 1968-??? (40 years so far): Republican Dominance a. Won 7 of 10 elections b. Cycle ends: ???? IMPORTANT POINTS 1. 1968 was a very significant election. Since then, the Republicans have kept the Democrats on the defensive on issues such as patriotism, national security, crime, sexuality, and religion. The only Democrats able to overcome this disadvantage have been Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. 2. In this era, Democrats can only win when the minds of the voters are taken away from the issues stated above and focused directly on the economy. "It's the Economy, Stupid" is not just a cute phrase, but a keen political insight. 3. This cycle will end at some point (when is hard to say). The end will come when a national crisis "discredits" the Republicans in the minds of the voters and creates a political environment more favorable to the Democrats. KEY DETERMINING FACTORS IN ELECTIONS • Retrospective Voting---voters make choices on past performance (more effective message) • Prospective Voting---voters make choices based on future expectations (less effective message) • Mobilize your “base”---get your voters out to the polls • Win over “swing” voters---not consistently allied with either party (such as Independents, Catholics, seniors) • Win the “purple” states---among others: Ohio, Missouri, New Hampshire, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Florida • Negative Campaigning---while personal attacks do not necessarily work, policy contrasts do 2004 Electoral Map Source: http://www.electoral-vote.com/ Kerry 252 Bush 286 Dark Blue: Strong Dem (146) Light Blue: Weak Dem (37) Blue Border: Barely Dem (69) White: Exactly tied (0) Red Border: Barely GOP (37) Light Red: Weak GOP (66) Dark Red: Strong GOP (183) 2006 Electoral Map Source: Source: http://www.electoral-vote.com/ Democrats 51 Republicans 49 Dark Blue: Strong Dem (46) Light Blue: Weak Dem (2) Blue Border: Barely Dem (3) White: Exactly tied (0) Red Border: Barely GOP (1) Light Red: Weak GOP (1) Dark Red: Strong GOP (47) Gray: No Senate race POLICY EFFECTS OF ELECTIONS---CAMPAIGN PROMISES • • • Pomper, 1968: About 2/3 of presidential platform promises are fulfilled Krukones, 1984: Success rates for fulfilling campaign promises ranges from 70 to 76% Charlotte Observer Washington Bureau, 1996: Bill Clinton achieved 66% of promises (105 out of 159) in his first term; 80% if we include “good faith” efforts (23 were blocked by Congress) Shaw, 1998: Presidents do try to fulfill promises (ranging from 62% to 81% for recent presidents), but sometimes other constraints in the political environment cause them to fail in this task • POLICY EFFECTS OF ELECTIONS---REALIGNING ELECTIONS • Burnham, 1970: Realigning elections are the "mainsprings" of American politics, something that brings the political process back to its roots and forces the system to respond to the needs of citizens • Clubb, Flanigan, Zingale, 1980: In order to create a new majority party and enact major policy change, the conditions of realignment must be supplemented by active leadership. Political failures in these periods indicate failures of leadership. • Kelso, 1992: Major social reform can only be accomplished in the wake of a sweeping electoral victory---not just at the presidential level, but in Congress as well. Without such a victory, the "defensive advantages" in the American political system thwart reform POLICY EFFECTS OF ELECTIONS--SPECIFIC POLICY CHANGES • Whiteley, 1986: When Democrats are in the White House, there is a statistically significant and positive effect on growth of real incomes; also, regardless of party, the more spent on military expenditures, the less is spent on social expenditures Hibbs, 1977: Unemployment tends to be about 2 points lower under Democratic than under Republican presidents Hicks and Swank, 1984: All non-right participation in government tends to increase welfare expansion Browning, 1985: When Democrats hold the presidency, the number of non-Southern Democrats in the House of Representatives tends to stimulate social spending Englebert, 1961: On average, Democrats spend more to protect natural resources than do Republicans Kelso, 2003: Democratic presidents are more likely to appoint people to environmental posts who are sympathetic to environmental protection and are more likely to use executive orders to protect the environment. A Democrat in the White House and more non-Southern Democrats in Congress increase the funding for key environmental agencies, such as Energy and Interior. Democrats are more likely to sign on to international environmental agreements • • • • •