Lecture III The 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 enfranchisement of 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 property qualifications for voting. Only men with property voted with a few exceptions. For example New 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, most states 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, understanding clauses, 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 the American electorate in terms of who votes and who doesnt, and how they vote?

1|Page

IV. Theories of Voting As political analysts, we want to answer two questions about voting: 1) Who votes and who doesnt; and 2) How people vote (direction). In order to understand who votes and who doesnt, lets 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 a mixture of what the voter knows and feelsvoters are concerned about politics, but not that concerned. Campbell found that most Americans have unsophisticated views of politics. In other words, most people are not ideological, i.e., a coherent set of beliefs that structure ones thinking about political issues. Hence, issues arise to most Americans that they have little context 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 biggest cues for voters. Furthermore, Campbell theorized that independent voters were the least involved in politics, least interested, and least committed. b. V.O.Key, The Responsible Electorate: Political Scientist V.O.Key responded to Campbells pessimistic study by arguing that he placed too heavy a burden on the American electorate and was too negative in assessing their sophistication. Keys response was to say voters are not 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 conscious decision to switch votes. Standpatters were rational as well, while the new voters were voters who seemed to go along with the tide. Key concluded that voters tended to decide how to vote based on prospective and retrospective voting. Voters respond to the past (remember Reagan in 1980: 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 much less committed to political parties than either Key or Campbell acknowledged. This is seen in a rise in independent voters (see p.82 of Wayne) who were willing to change parties during elections and split their tickets in voting. Voters decided according to: 1. Personal Characteristics 2. 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 in politics (as Campbell found) and those independent voters that were very active, very involved, and very 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 participate in 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 2|Page

c)

d)

e)

f)

politics business by busting the huge trusts/corporations that had formed in the United States, 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 to register to vote than it took to vote. But it had the effect of driving many poor and uneducated 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 on the 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 continued costs. 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 an alien and strange world that you do not have time for. Party Mobilization Strategy I: Introduction of Australian Ballot. Once again, returning to the Progressive Era: another way reformers at the turn of the century sought to clean up politics was to place elections entirely in the hands of the government. Prior to that, it was up to the political parties to print ballots for elections. Naturally, political parties would hand out 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 once there, voters were left with a real choice. Party Mobilization Strategy II: From a Labor Intensive Campaign to a Capital Intensive Campaign. In a time before television advertising, huge direct mailings, and huge telecommunications operations, parties sought to mobilize voters to the polls through going door-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, in contemporary elections, money has replaced man-power: voters can be reached through paid 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 a mailing can be sent. The effect has been to involve fewer and fewer people in party politics. Party Mobilization Strategy III: Government policies. Evidence suggests that government policies enacted the efforts of political parties have actually led to a demobilization of the electorate. For example, in the wake of the New Deal, the government provided social security benefits to the elderly. In the 1960s, the government began providing health care for the elderly (Medicare) and for the poor (Medicaid), along with an expansion of welfare benefits. These policies are carried out no matter which party is in power you receive a social security check whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House. While the parties may differ on the amount of the entitlements, neither has suggested doing away with them completely. The result is a weakened link between voters and the parties. 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 to vote; they understand the issues and seek out information to support their views. Those who care little about ideological debates and who refrain from seeking out political information tend not to vote. These may be considered independent voters. Over the last four decades the number of independent voters in the United States has increased and with it a decline in voter turnout. Some reasons and/or signs of the rise of the independent voter: 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., 3|Page

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 during campaign seasons; they hire their own staff, including pollsters and consultants; they raise and spend their own money separate from party activities. This has had the effect 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 means they are less likely to rely on the information disseminated by the parties. Voters are better able to sift through the campaign rhetoric and gauge for themselves the merits of the issues rather than toeing the party line. This has had the effect of making voters more cynical, and possibly leading them to turn off during election time completely. VI. 2004 and 2008 Presidential Elections in Perspective: Who Voted, Who Didnt, and Why

2000 Electoral Map

Democrat: 266 Al Gore Republican: 271 George W. Bush

4|Page

2004 Electoral Map

Democrat: 252 John Kerry Republican: 286 George W. Bush

5|Page

2008 Electoral Map

2004 versus 2008: Gender

Total Bush Kerry
TOTAL McCain Obama

Male (46%) Female (54%)

55%

44%
Male (47%) 48% 49%

48%

51%
Female (53%) 43% 56%

6|Page

2004 versus 2008: Vote by Age

Total 18-29 (17%)

Bush 45% 53%

Kerry 54% 46%

TOTAL

McCain

Obama

18-29 (18%)

32%

66%

30-44(29%)

30-44 (29%)

46%

52%

45-59(30%)

51%
54%

48%
46%

45- 64(37%)

49%

50%

60 +(24%)

65+(16%)

53%

45%

2004 versus 2008: Vote by Race

Total
White (77%) Black (11%) Latino (8%) Asian (2%)

Bush 58% 11% 44%

Kerry 41% 88% 53%

TOTAL White (74%) Black (13%) Latino (9%) Asian (2%)

McCain 55%

Obama

43%

4%

95%

31% 35%

67% 62%

44%

56%

7|Page

2004 versus 2008: Race and Gender

TOTAL White Men (36%) White Women (41%) Non-White Men (10%) Non-White Women (12%) Bush 62% 55% 30% Kerry 37% 44% 67%

TOTAL White Men (36%)

White Women (39%) Non-White Men (11%) Non-White Women (13%)

McCain

Obama

57% 53% 17%

41% 46% 80%

24%

75%

15%

83%

2004 versus 2008: Vote by Education

TOTAL Kerry 50% Bush 49% TOTAL Obama 63% McCain 35%

No High School (4%) H.S. Graduate (22%)

Some College (32%) College Graduate (26%) Postgraduate (16%)

No High School (3%) H.S. Graduate (21%)

Some College (31%) College Graduate (27%) Postgraduate (18%)

47%

52%

52%

46%

46%

54%

51%

47%

46%

52%

50%

48%

55%

44%

58%

40%

8|Page

2004 vs. 2008: Vote by Religion

Total
Protestant (54%)

Bush 59%

Kerry 40%

Total

McCain

Obama

Protestant (54%)

54%

45%

Catholic (27%)
Jewish (3%)

52%
25%

47%
74%

Catholic (27%)

45%

54%

Jewish (2%) None (10%) 31% 67%

21%

78%

None (12%)

23%

77%

Other (7%)

23%

74%

Other (6%)

22%%

71%

2004 versus 2008: Vote by Income

TOTAL Under $15,000 (8%) Kerry 63% Bush 36% TOTAL Under $15,000 (6%) Obama 73% McCain 25%

$15-30,000 (15%)
$30-50,000 (22%) $50-75,000 (23%) $75-100,000 (14%) $100-150,000 (11%) $150-200,000 (4%) $200,000 or More (3%)

57%
50% 43% 45% 42% 42% 35%

42%
49% 56% 55% 57% 58% 63%

$15-30,000 (12%)
$30-50,000 (19%) $50-75,000 (21%) $75-100,000 (15%) $100-150,000 (14%)

60%
55% 48% 51% 48%

37%
43% 49% 48% 51%

$150-200,000 (6%)
$200,000 or More (6%)

48%
52%

50%
46%

9|Page

Issues in 2004
Percent of voters= 100% 22% 20% 19% 15% Total Bush Kerry

Moral Values Economy/Jobs Terrorism Iraq

80% 18% 86% 26%

18% 80% 14% 73%

8%
5% 4%

Health care
Taxes Education

23%
57% 26%

77%
43% 73%

Issues in 2008
Percent of voters= 100% 63% 10% Total Obama McCain Economy Iraq 53% 26% 44% 73%

9%
9%

Terrorism
Health Care

13%
73%

86%
26%

7%

Energy Policy

50%

46%

10 | P a g e

When Did You Decide Who to Vote For?

TOTAL
Today (4%) Last Three Days (3%) Last Week (3%) Obama 50% 47% 48% McCain 45% 52% 50%

In October (15%)
In September (14%) Before That (60%)

54%
54% 52%

43%
45% 47%

Is this the First Year You Have Ever Voted?

Total Yes (11%) No (89%) Obama 69% 50% McCain 30% 48%

11 | P a g e

Exit Polling Data in Perspective

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/m ap.html

VII. 2008 Presidential and 2010 Midterm Elections By Comparison

2008 Congressional Map

12 | P a g e

2010 Congressional Map

The Decimation of the Blue Dogs

13 | P a g e

The House
During President George W. Bush's second term, Democrats registered a net gain of 55 House seats and vaulted into majority status in Congress' lower chamber. Although Democrats won more new seats in the party's current cornerstone, the Northeast, than any other region, more than half of their House pick-ups in 2006 and 2008 were in the South, Midwest and Mountain West--traditionally less favorable terrain for the party than the Northeast and Pacific West.

14 | 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: Age

Total 18-29 (18%) McCain 32% Obama 66%

30-44 (29%)
45- 59(31%) 60+(22%)

46%
49% 53%

52%
50% 45%

Total
18-29 (11%) 30-44 (22%)

Republicans
40% 50%

Democrats
56% 47%

45- 59(40%)
60+(27%)

52%
58%

46%
40%

15 | P a g e

2008 vs. 2010: Sex

TOTAL Male (47%) Female (53%) McCain 48% 43% Obama 49% 56%

TOTAL Male (47%) Female (53%)

Republicans 55% 48%

Democrats 42% 49%

2008 vs. 2010: Race

TOTAL White (74%) Black (13%) Latino (9%) Asian (2%)
TOTAL White (78%) Black (10%) Latino (8%) Asian (2%)

McCain 55% 4% 31% 35%

Republicans 60%

Obama

43% 95% 67% 62%

Democrats 38%

9%
33% 40%

90%
65% 56%

16 | P a g e

2008 vs. 2010: Religion

Total Protestant (54%) Catholic (27%) Jewish (2%) None (12%) Other (6%) McCain 54% 45% 21% 23% 22%% Obama 45% 54% 78% 77% 71%

Total Protestant (54%) Catholic (25%) Jewish (2%) None (12%) Other (7%)

Republicans 59% 53% N/A 31% 25%

Democrats 39% 45% N/A 66% 73%

2008 vs. 2010: Income

TOTAL Under $15,000 (6%) $15-30,000 (12%) $30-50,000 (19%) $50-75,000 (21%) $75-100,000 (15%) $100-150,000 (14%) $150-200,000 (6%) $200,000 or More (6%) Obama 73% 60% 55% 48% McCain 25% 37% 43% 49% $30-50,000 (19%) TOTAL Under $30,000 (18%) Democrats 57% Republicans 40%

51%

46%

$50-75,000 (21%)
$75-100,000 (16%) $100-200,000 (19%) $200,000 or More (7%)

46%

52%

51%
48% 48% 52%

48%
51% 50% 46%

42%

56%

42%

56%

35%

62%

17 | P a g e

2008 vs. 2010: Education

TOTAL No High School (3%) H.S. Graduate (21%) Some College (31%) College Graduate (27%) Postgraduate (18%) Obama 63% 52% 51% McCain 35% 46% 47% TOTAL Democrats Republicans 60% 46% 44% 42% 52% 36% 52% 53% 56% 46%

No High School (3%)

H.S. Graduate (19%) Some College (30%) College Graduate (28%) Postgraduate (20%)

50%

48%

58%

40%

Partisan Identification
TOTAL Democrat (36%) Republican (36%) Independent (28%) Democrats 92% 4% 39% Republicans 7% 95% 55%

18 | P a g e

Ideology

TOTAL Liberal (20%) Moderate (39%) Conservative (41%)

Democrats 90% 56% 14%

Republicans 8% 42% 84%

First time Voting? 2008 vs. 2010

Total Obama McCain

Yes (11%) No (89%)

69% 50%

30% 48%

TOTAL Yes (3%)

Democrats 49%

Republicans 45%

No (97%)

45%

52%

19 | P a g e

Activist Government?

TOTAL Government Should Do More (38%) Government Doing Too Much (56%)

Democrats 78%

Republicans 20%

21%

76%

Opinion of the Tea Party

TOTAL Support (40%) Democrats 11% Republicans 86%

Neutral (25%)
Oppose (31%)

47%
86%

49%
12%

20 | P a g e

Most important Issue

Total Democrats 57% 53% Republicans 41% 45%

War in Afghanistan (8%)

Health Care (18%)

Economy (62%)
Illegal Immigration (8%)

44%
27%

53%
68%

21 | P a g e