Malone POL 296N Lecture III the Political Environment

8/4/2019 Malone POL 296N Lecture III the Political Environment

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/malone-pol-296n-lecture-iii-the-political-environment 1/21

1 | P a g e

Lecture IIIThe Political Environment

Dr. Christopher Malone

I. The Franchise and Voter Turnout: A Historical Perspective Throughout the history of the United States, the franchise has been broadened in four important respects:white male eligibility, enfranchisement of black citizens, enfranchisement of women, and enfranchisementof those between 18-21. But those who study voter turnout are presented with a problem: why has voter turnout decreased at the same time barriers to voting have been lowered?

a. 1790s-1830s: At the time the Constitution was drafted, all states had some type of propertyqualifications for voting. Only men with property voted – with a few exceptions. For exampleNew Jersey allowed women and free blacks to vote from 1776-1807.

b. 1830s: Universal white male suffrage – by the middle decades of the nineteenth century, moststates dropped the property qualifications for voting. Most white men could vote, regardless of

property holdings.c. Race - 15th Amendment, 1870: Granted black males the right to vote.d. Jim Crow Period – 1880s-1960s: Blacks were denied the right to vote and could not use the

same public facilities as whites. Poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, understandingclauses, the white primary – all were ways to make sure blacks could not vote.

e. Civil Rights Act of 1964: Ended legal segregation.f. 24th Amendment: Outlawed the poll tax.g. Voting Rights Act of 1965 – federal enforcement to ensure blacks the right to register to vote.

Registration in south for blacks increased – 6% to 67% in Mississippi, for example.h. Gender: Women were granted the right to vote with the 19th amendment in 1920.i. Age: 1972, 26th amendment lowered the voting age to 18. (Why?)

II. Voter Turnout Decline Given the expansion of the suffrage, voter turnout has continued to decline in America. See Wayne,p.67. Why?

III. Who Votes and Who Does Not a. Class and Education: Wealthy and educated vote in higher percentages than the poor and

uneducated.b. Whites vs. Non-Whites: Whites vote in higher percentages, but this statistic is a function of

class and education (e.g., blacks and whites in the same income bracket and with similar levels of education vote in roughly equal numbers.

c. Gender: Men and women vote in roughly equal percentages, but not the same way. There is a“Gender Gap” in American politics.

d. Age: those between 18-25 and over 75 vote less.e. Government employees – vote in high numbers.

Analyze the voting data in Wayne chapter 3: Reading the data is vital. What is going on in theAmerican electorate in terms of who votes and who doesn’t, and how they vote?



2 | P a g e

IV. Theories of Voting As political analysts, we want to answer two questions about voting: 1) Who votes and who doesn’t; and 2)How people vote (direction). In order to understand who votes and who doesn’t, let’s first look at theories of how voters make their choice.

a. The American Voter: Angus Campbell, 1960. Campbell and his colleagues theorized that

voting is a mixture of cognition, evaluation, perception and affect. In short, voting is amixture of what the voter knows and feels…voters are concerned about politics, but not thatconcerned. Campbell found that most Americans have unsophisticated views of politics. Inother words, most people are not ideological , i.e., a coherent set of beliefs that structure one’sthinking about political issues. Hence, issues arise to most Americans that they have littlecontext in which to understand them. Most people then decide according to party affiliation – which comes mainly from parents. Voters are also socialized into their voting choices, e.g.,church, school, work, neighborhood, etc. Partisanship, not cognitive choices, is the biggestcues for voters. Furthermore, Campbell theorized that independent voters were the leastinvolved in politics, least interested, and least committed.

b. V.O.Key, The Responsible Electorate: Political Scientist V.O.Key responded to Campbell’s

pessimistic study by arguing that he placed too heavy a burden on the American electorateand was too negative in assessing their sophistication. Key’s response was to say “voters arenot fools.” All in all they know what they are doing. Key divided the electorate into three groups:

1. Standpatters: those who voted for the same party in consecutive elections.Standpatters accounted for about half of all voters.

2. New Voters: About 30% of all voters in his study.3. Switchers: About 13-20% of voters that switched parties in consecutive elections.

Key found that the most “rational” of all voters were the switchers, since they made a consciousdecision to switch votes. Standpatters were rational as well, while the new voters were voters whoseemed to go along with the tide. Key concluded that voters tended to decide how to vote basedon prospective and retrospective voting. Voters respond to the past (remember Reagan in1980: Are you better off today than you were four years ago?c. The Changing American Voter: Norman Nie, Sidney Verba and John Petrocik revisited the

theories of voting and came to another conclusion. They found that the American voter is muchless committed to political parties than either Key or Campbell acknowledged. This is seen in arise in independent voters (see p.82 of Wayne) who were willing to change parties duringelections and split their tickets in voting. Voters decided according to:

1. Personal Characteristics2. Issues

The authors of the study argued that parties have become increasingly weaker in terms of appealing to voters. The independent voters, further, fell into two categories: those least involved inpolitics (as Campbell found) and those independent voters that were very active, very involved, andvery issue oriented.

V. Explaining Voter Turnout a) Socialization – From the time we enter school, we are taught that the fundamental element

of democracy involves voting. In other words, we are taught it is our “civic duty” to vote. And the longer one is part of the education process, the more likely he/she will participatein elections through voting.

b) Cost of Voting: fall off began between 1890-1910. Beginning of personal registration.Progressive Era reforms: The Progressive Era sought to clean up both business and



3 | P a g e

politics – business by busting the huge trusts/corporations that had formed in the UnitedStates, politics by breaking the backs of the party machines in the United States. Thus,reformers introduced personal registration for voting. At the time, it took more effort toregister to vote than it took to vote. But it had the effect of driving many poor anduneducated out of the electorate: the cost in terms of time and effort to vote was not worth

it compared to the benefit of voting. Recently, the Motor Voter Law has tried to cut back onthe costs of voting. But today, the poor and the uneducated continue to vote in fewer numbers than those with money or education. One of the reasons is due to continuedcosts. It is very difficult to understand the political system; it takes time to understand it,and if you are worrying about securing comfort for your family, the political system is analien and strange world that you do not have time for.

c) Party Mobilization Strategy I: Introduction of Australian Ballot. Once again, returning to theProgressive Era: another way reformers at the turn of the century sought to clean uppolitics was to place elections entirely in the hands of the government. Prior to that, it wasup to the political parties to print ballots for elections. Naturally, political parties would handout ballots with only one slate of candidates on them – their own. After the introduction of

the Australian Ballot, political parties enticed voters by giving rides to the polls – but oncethere, voters were left with a real choice.d) Party Mobilization Strategy II: From a Labor Intensive Campaign to a Capital Intensive

Campaign. In a time before television advertising, huge direct mailings, and hugetelecommunications operations, parties sought to mobilize voters to the polls through goingdoor-to-door. This was incredibly labor intensive. It required thousands and thousands of the “party faithful” in order to get out the vote and get the message out. However, incontemporary elections, money has replaced man-power: voters can be reached throughpaid advertisements, since 98% of the American people own at least one TV. in their house. With the press of a button, an email can be sent out to thousands of individuals or amailing can be sent. The effect has been to involve fewer and fewer people in partypolitics.

e) Party Mobilization Strategy III: Government policies. Evidence suggests that governmentpolicies enacted the efforts of political parties have actually led to a demobilization of theelectorate. For example, in the wake of the New Deal, the government provided socialsecurity benefits to the elderly. In the 1960s, the government began providing health carefor the elderly (Medicare) and for the poor (Medicaid), along with an expansion of welfarebenefits. These policies are carried out no matter which party is in power – you receive asocial security check whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House. While theparties may differ on the amount of the entitlements, neither has suggested doing awaywith them completely. The result is a weakened link between voters and the parties.

f) Rise of Independent Voters: The rise of independent voters has led to a lower voter turnout. Voters who are highly partisan and aligned with one or the other parties tend tovote; they understand the issues and seek out information to support their views. Thosewho care little about ideological debates and who refrain from seeking out politicalinformation tend not to vote. These may be considered independent voters. Over the lastfour decades the number of independent voters in the United States has increased – andwith it a decline in voter turnout. Some reasons and/or signs of the rise of the independentvoter:1. Split-Ticket Voting: More voters are willing nowadays to split their ticket – that is, they

are willing to vote for a candidate of one party at one level of government (e.g.,



4 | P a g e

president) and for a candidate from a different party at another level of government(e.g., Senator or Congressmen).

2. Candidate-centered Campaigns: Candidates today rely less on political parties for assistance and guidance during campaigns. Candidates “rent” the party label duringcampaign seasons; they hire their own staff, including pollsters and consultants; they

raise and spend their own money separate from party activities. This has had theeffect of focusing attention less on the party than on the candidate and his/her personal characteristics.

3. More Educated Voters: Voters today are more educated than in the past, which meansthey are less likely to rely on the information disseminated by the parties. Voters arebetter able to sift through the campaign rhetoric and gauge for themselves the meritsof the issues rather than toeing the “party line.” This has had the effect of makingvoters more cynical, and possibly leading them to turn off during election timecompletely.

VI. 2004 and 2008 Presidential Elections in Perspective: Who Voted, Who Didn’t, and Why

2000 Electoral M apDemocrat: 266 Al Gore

Republican: 271 George W. Bush



5 | P a g e

2004 Electoral M apDemocrat: 252 John Kerry

Republican: 286 George W. Bush



6 | P a g e

2008 E lectoral Map

2004 versus 2008:Gender

Total Bush Kerry

Male(46%)

55% 44%

Female(54%)

48% 51%

TOTAL McCain Obama

Male (47%) 48% 49%

Female (53%) 43% 56%



7 | P a g e

2004 versus 2008:Vote by Age

Total Bush Kerry

18-29 (17%) 45% 54%

30-44(29%) 53% 46%

45-59(30%) 51% 48%

60 +(24%) 54% 46%

TOTAL McCain Obama

18-29 (18%) 32% 66%

30-44 (29%) 46% 52%

45- 64(37%) 49% 50%

65+(16%) 53% 45%

2004 versus 2008:Vote by Race

Total Bush Kerry

White(77%)

58% 41%

Black(11%)

11% 88%

Latino(8%)

44% 53%

Asian(2%)

44% 56%

TOTAL McCain Obama

White(74%)

55% 43%

Black(13%)

4% 95%

Latino(9%)

31% 67%

Asian(2%)

35% 62%



8 | P a g e

2004 versus 2008:Race and Gender

TOTAL Bush Kerry

White Men(36%)

62% 37%

White Women

(41%)55% 44%

Non-WhiteMen (10%)

30% 67%

Non-White Women

(12%)24% 75%

TOTAL McCain Obama

White Men(36%)

57% 41%

White Women(39%)

53% 46%

Non-White Men(11%)

17% 80%

Non-White Women (13%)

15% 83%

2004 versus 2008:Vote by Education

TOTAL Kerry Bush

No HighSchool (4%)

50% 49%

H.S.Graduate

(22%)47% 52%

Some College(32%)

46% 54%

College

Graduate(26%)

46% 52%

Postgraduate(16%)

55% 44%

TOTAL Obama McCain

No HighSchool (3%)

63% 35%

H.S.Graduate

(21%)52% 46%

Some College(31%)

51% 47%

College

Graduate(27%)

50% 48%

Postgraduate(18%)

58% 40%



9 | P a g e

2004 vs. 2008:Vo te by Religion

Total Bush Kerry

Protestant (54%) 59% 40%

Catholic (27%) 52% 47%

Jewish (3%) 25% 74%

None (10%) 31% 67%

Other (7%) 23% 74%

Total McCain Obama


Catholic (27%) 45% 54%

Jewish (2%) 21% 78%

None (12%) 23% 77%

Other (6%) 22%% 71%

2004 versus 2008:Vote by Income

TOTAL Obama McCain

Under $15,000(6%)

73% 25%

$15-30,000(12%)

60% 37%

$30-50,000(19%)

55% 43%

$50-75,000(21%)

48% 49%

$75-100,000(15%)

51% 48%

$100-150,000(14%)

48% 51%

$150-200,000(6%)

48% 50%

$200,000 orMore (6%)

52% 46%

TOTAL Kerry Bush

Under $15,000(8%)

63% 36%

$15-30,000(15%)

57% 42%

$30-50,000(22%)

50% 49%

$50-75,000(23%)

43% 56%

$75-100,000(14%)

45% 55%

$100-150,000(11%)

42% 57%

$150-200,000(4%)

42% 58%

$200,000 orMore (3%)

35% 63%



10 | P a g e

Percent of voters=

100%

Total Bush Kerry

22% Moral Values 80% 18%

20% Economy/Jobs 18% 80%

19% Terrorism 86% 14%

15% Iraq 26% 73%

8% Health care 23% 77%

5% Taxes 57% 43%

4% Education 26% 73%

Issues in 2004

Issues in 2008Percent of voters=

100%

Total Obama McCain

63% Economy 53% 44%

10% Iraq 26% 73%

9% Terrorism 13% 86%

9% Health Care 73% 26%

7% Energy Policy 50% 46%



11 | P a g e

W hen Did You DecideW ho to Vote For?

TOTALObama McCain

Today (4%) 50% 45%

Last Three Days (3%) 47% 52%

Last Week (3%) 48% 50%

In October (15%) 54% 43%

In September (14%) 54% 45%

Before That (60%) 52% 47%

Is this the First YearYou Have Ever Voted?

Total Obama M cCain

Yes (11%) 69% 30%

No (89% ) 50% 48%



12 | P a g e

Exit Polling Data in Perspectivehttp://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/m

ap.html

VII. 2008 Presidential and 2010 Midterm Elections By Comparison

2008 Congressional Map



13 | P a g e

2010 Congressional Map

The Decimation of the Blue Dogs …



14 | P a g e

The HouseDuring President George W. Bush's second term, Democrats

registered a net gain of 55 House seats and vaulted intomajority status in Congress' lower chamber. AlthoughDemocrats won more new seats in the party's current

cornerstone, the Northeast, than any other region, more thanhalf of their House pick-ups in 2006 and 2008 were in theSouth, Midwest and Mountain West--traditionally less favorableterrain for the party than the Northeast and Pacific West.



15 | P a g e

Giving Back the Gains

Democrats won a total of 46 seats in“red” or “purple” Congressional districts

2006 and 2008.

In “red” districts (22 total), Democrats

lost all seats.

In “purple” districts (24 total), Democrats

won 4 seats.

2008 vs. 2010: AgeTotal McCain Obama

18-29 (18%) 32% 66%

30-44 (29%) 46% 52%

45- 59(31%) 49% 50%

60+(22%) 53% 45%

Total Republicans Democrats

18-29 (11%) 40% 56%

30-44 (22%) 50% 47%

45- 59(40%) 52% 46%

60+(27%) 58% 40%



16 | P a g e

2008 vs. 2010: Sex

TOTAL McCain Obama

Male (47%) 48% 49%

Female (53%) 43% 56%

TOTAL Republicans Democrats

Male (47%) 55% 42%

Female (53%) 48% 49%

2008 vs. 2010: RaceTOTAL McCain Obama

White(74%)

55% 43%

Black(13%)

4% 95%

Latino

(9%) 31% 67%

Asian(2%)

35% 62%

TOTAL Republicans Democrats

White

(78%)60% 38%

Black

(10%)9% 90%

Latino

(8%)33% 65%

Asian

(2%)

40% 56%



17 | P a g e

2008 vs. 2010: ReligionTotal McCain Obama


Catholic (27%) 45% 54%

Jewish (2%) 21% 78%

None (12%) 23% 77%

Other (6%) 22%% 71%

Total Republicans Democrats


Catholic (25%) 53% 45%

Jewish (2%) N/A N/A

None (12%) 31% 66%

Other (7%) 25% 73%

2008 vs. 2010: Income

TOTAL Obama McCain

Under $15,000(6%)

73% 25%

$15-30,000(12%)

60% 37%

$30-50,000(19%)

55% 43%

$50-75,000(21%)

48% 49%

$75-100,000(15%)

51% 48%

$100-150,000(14%)

48% 51%

$150-200,000(6%)

48% 50%

$200,000 orMore (6%)

52% 46%

TOTAL Democrats Republicans

Under $30,000

(18%)

57% 40%

$30-50,000

(19%)51% 46%

$50-75,000

(21%)46% 52%

$75-100,000

(16%)42% 56%

$100-200,000

(19%)42% 56%

$200,000 or

More (7%)35% 62%



18 | P a g e

2008 vs. 2010: Education

TOTAL Obama McCain

No HighSchool (3%) 63% 35%

H.S. Graduate(21%)

52% 46%

Some College(31%)

51% 47%

CollegeGraduate

(27%)50% 48%

Postgraduate(18%)

58% 40%


No High School(3%)

60% 36%

H.S. Graduate

(19%)46% 52%

Some College

(30%)44% 53%

College

Graduate (28%)42% 56%

Postgraduate

(20%)52% 46%

Partisan Identification

TOTAL Democrats RepublicansDemocrat (36%) 92% 7%

Republican (36%) 4% 95%

Independent (28%) 39% 55%



19 | P a g e

Ideology


Liberal (20%) 90% 8%

Moderate (39%) 56% 42%

Conservative (41%) 14% 84%

First time Voting? 2008 vs. 2010


Yes (3%) 49% 45%

No (97%) 45% 52%

Total Obama McCain

Yes (11%) 69% 30%

No (89%) 50% 48%



20 | P a g e

Activist Government?


Government Should Do

More (38%)78% 20%

Government Doing Too

Much (56%)21% 76%

Opinion of the Tea Party


Support (40%) 11% 86%

Neutral (25%) 47% 49%

Oppose (31%) 86% 12%



21 | P a g e

Most important Issue

Total Democrats Republicans

War in Afghanistan

(8%)57% 41%

Health Care (18%) 53% 45%

Economy (62%) 44% 53%

Illegal Immigration

(8%)27% 68%

Documents

Malone POL 296N Lecture III the Political Environment