The A study on the influence of socio-economic status on voting behaviour With special

reference to Chennai

Author

B.SRIHARI

BA LLB(HONS)1ST YEAR

SAVEETHA SCHOOL OF LAW

SAVEETHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL AND TECHNICAL SCIENCE (SIMATS)

CHENNAI 600077

EMAIL ID: hariblaw@gmail.com

CONTACT NO :9600647121

Co-Author
 A study on the influence of socio-economic status on voting behaviour With special
reference to Chennai

B.SRIHARI1

ABSTRACT:

This study deals into the intricate interplay between socio-economic status (SES) and voting
behaviour, seeking to understand how economic and social factors shape individuals’
political choices. Drawing on a comprehensive analysis of existing literature and empirical
studies, the research explores the nuanced connections between income, education,
occupation, and various demographic factors in influencing voter preferences.The findings
suggest a multifaceted relationship between SES and voting behaviour, wherein higher socio-
economic status may correlate with increased political engagement, participation, and a
tendency towards certain political ideologies. However, disparities exist within this broad
framework, with nuances emerging based on regional, cultural, and contextual variations.The
study also considers the impact of changing economic conditions, globalisation, and socio-
cultural factors on the dynamics of SES and voting patterns. Additionally, it examines how
perceptions of economic well-being, social mobility, and access to education contribute to
shaping voter attitudes and choices.Understanding the intricate connections between socio-
economic status and voting behaviour is crucial for policymakers, political analysts, and
researchers. By unravelling these patterns, it becomes possible to develop more targeted and
effective strategies for political engagement, public policy, and fostering a democratic society
that addresses the diverse needs and perspectives of its citizens.

Keywords: intricate,demographic factors,multifaceted,contextual variations,fostering.

1
Introduction:

Voting rights are not just a fundamental aspect of democratic societies; they also serve as a
reflection of socio-economic behaviours within these societies. At its core, socio-economic
behaviour refers to the ways in which individuals, groups, and communities make decisions
and interact within the framework of their economic circumstances and social environment.
When examining voting rights through this lens, it becomes evident that socio-economic
factors play a significant role in shaping who participates in elections, how they engage with
the political process, and ultimately, the outcomes of those elections.In many democracies,
access to voting rights has historically been tied to socio-economic status. Wealthier
individuals often have greater resources and opportunities to participate in the political
process, whether through financial contributions, education, or access to information.
Conversely, marginalised communities, including those facing poverty, discrimination, or
limited access to education, may encounter barriers that hinder their ability to exercise their
right to vote fully.The socio-economic behaviour surrounding voting rights encompasses a
range of dynamics. Economic inequality, for example, can influence voter turnout and
political engagement. Research has shown that individuals with higher incomes are more
likely to vote than those with lower incomes, suggesting that economic status can shape
participation rates. Similarly, educational attainment correlates with voting behavior, with
higher levels of education often associated with increased political awareness and
participation.Moreover, socio-economic factors can impact voting decisions themselves.
Economic concerns, such as job security, healthcare access, and income inequality, often
influence how individuals cast their ballots. Additionally, perceptions of social issues, such as
immigration, racial equality, and environmental policy, can be shaped by socio-economic
backgrounds, as these issues may have differential impacts on various segments of
society.Understanding the socio-economic behaviour surrounding voting rights is crucial for
addressing inequalities within democratic systems. By recognizing the disparities that exist in
political participation and decision-making, policymakers can implement reforms to promote
greater inclusivity and accessibility in the electoral process. This may involve initiatives to
increase voter registration, improve civic education, and reduce barriers to voting,
particularly for marginalised communities.In conclusion, the interplay between socio-
economic factors and voting rights highlights the complex relationship between democracy,
inequality, and civic engagement. By examining how economic circumstances and social
dynamics shape participation in the political process, we can work towards building more
equitable and representative democracies.Socio-economic factors play a significant role in
shaping voting behaviour. These factors include income level, education, occupation, social
status, and access to resources. People from different socio-economic backgrounds often have
varying political beliefs, priorities, and perceptions of government policies, which influence
their voting decisions.For example, individuals with higher levels of education and income
may prioritise economic policies, while those with lower income levels may prioritise issues
like healthcare, education accessibility, or social welfare programs. Additionally, socio-
economic disparities can affect access to voting rights, with marginalised communities facing
barriers such as voter suppression tactics, lack of voter education, or limited access to polling
stations.Understanding the intersection of socio-economic factors and voting rights is crucial
for ensuring equal representation and addressing systemic inequalities in the electoral
process.

Objectives:

● To Analyse the impact of socioeconomic factors on voting behaviour.

● To Investigate how income levels influence voting patterns and political preferences.
● To Examine the role of education in shaping voter turnout and political participation.

Literature review:

Alesina and Glaeser (2004) have found that higher-income individuals are more likely to
support conservative or right-leaning parties. This can be attributed to the belief that
conservative policies, such as lower taxes and less government intervention, align with their
economic interests. Higher-income individuals may prioritise economic issues such as
business growth, investment, and reduced regulation.
Bartels (2008) suggests that income inequality can also influence voting decisions. Bartels
found that individuals in societies with higher levels of income inequality are more likely to
support left-wing parties or candidates. This could be because income inequality can lead to
perceptions of unfairness and a desire for policies that address economic disparities.

Evans and Andersen(2006) suggests that higher levels of education are generally associated
with more liberal or left-leaning political orientations. This is partly attributed to the exposure
to diverse ideas, critical thinking skills, and access to information that comes with higher
education. Well-educated individuals often prioritise issues such as social justice, equality,
and progressive policies that address societal challenges.

Karp and Banducci 2008; Matland and Studlar (1996) Gender can significantly influence
individuals’ voting decisions, with distinct patterns observed between men and women.
Previous findings showed a relationship between gender and political preferences. Some
studies have found that women tend to be more likely to support left-leaning parties or
candidates compared to men.

Monroe (1995)This gender gap in voting behaviour can be attributed to various factors.
Women often prioritise issues such as healthcare, education, social welfare, and gender
equality, which are commonly associated with progressive policies. Additionally, women’s
political attitudes and behaviours may be influenced by their experiences, including societal
expectations, gender roles, and experiences of discrimination.

Franceschet and Piscopo (2012)It is important to note that the gender gap in voting
behaviour is not uniform across countries and contexts, and variations exist within gender
groups. Factors such as age, education, race, and socioeconomic status can intersect with
gender to influence voting decisions.

Blais et al. (2004) Younger voters often prioritise issues such as climate change, social
justice, and generational concerns, which align with progressive policies. This simply means
not to create issues among society which is not a major cause or threat to the people's life.

Mason (2018) In contrast, liberal-minded voters usually champion societal progression,

economic regulation, and a wider embrace of inclusivity, driving their support toward
candidates with these viewpoints and ideas that emerge to them in this problem with respect
to society.

Gerber et al. (2011) suggests that certain personality traits are associated with specific
political orientations and voting behaviours. For instance, individuals with higher levels of
openness to experiences tend to be more receptive to new ideas and are more likely to support
progressive policies and candidates.

Bakker and Lelkes (2018) On the other hand, individuals with higher levels of
conscientiousness, which includes traits such as self-discipline and organisation, are more
inclined towards conservative ideologies that emphasise order and tradition. Furthermore,
studies have shown that agreeableness, which relates to cooperation and empathy, is
associated with support for policies that prioritise social equality.

Vecchione et al. (2018), it was found that individuals with higher levels of extraversion tend
to vote for parties or candidates that emphasise charisma and assertiveness. Extraverts are
more likely to be attracted to leaders who are energetic and outgoing, whereas introverts may
prefer more reserved and thoughtful candidates.

Lodge and Taber(2013) underscore the intertwined nature of emotion and cognition in
political thinking. Emotions can offer shortcuts or heuristics that influence how individuals
evaluate political stimuli. For instance, a voter might feel fear when considering certain
policies, leading them to oppose those policies even if a logical evaluation might suggest
otherwise. Simultaneously, cognitive processes can also influence how one interprets and
responds to emotional experiences, shaping the direction and intensity of political attitudes.

Anderson and McGregor (2018) found that concern for climate change is a significant
predictor of voting behaviour, especially for younger voters who are likely to bear the brunt
of climate change impacts.

Haselswerdt (2018) highlighted that individuals’ personal experiences with healthcare can
guide their voting choices. Experiences that meet or exceed expectations can solidify support
for the current system or incumbent politicians, whereas subpar experiences can stimulate a
call for change, prompting voters to lean against the existing political order.
Gollust and Rahn (2019) discovered that personal health crises, such as severe illnesses or
accidents, can substantially realign voters’ priorities. In these situations, voters tended to
assign a greater weight to healthcare policies when casting their votes. This phenomenon was
found to be valid even among voters who previously did not view healthcare policies as a
decisive factor in their voting decisions.

Geruso and Layton (2020)Extending this perspective to a broader scale, found that
communities with inferior health outcomes, a potential sign of deficient healthcare services,
were more likely to vote for candidates pledging healthcare reforms

Clinton and Sances (2021) Lastly,research revealed the profound influence of the COVID-
19 pandemic on voting behaviour, particularly in areas severely impacted by the pandemic.
These areas were more inclined to support candidates advocating for enhanced public health
measures and improvements in healthcare.

Hajnal et al. (2017) Individuals often align their voting choices with the interests and
perspectives associated with their racial and ethnic identities. Minority voters may support
candidates or parties that they perceive as more attentive to their concerns regarding racial or
ethnic equality and social justice

Green et al. (2002)Party identification provides voters with a sense of identity and belonging
to a larger political community. It simplifies the decision-making process by providing a
heuristic or mental shortcut for evaluating candidates and their positions

Converse (1964) Psychological factors also play a role in voting decisions. Attitudes, values,
beliefs, and political ideologies contribute to the formation of preferences and can guide voter
choices. Personal experiences, socialization processes, and exposure to political information
through media and social networks further shape these attitudes.
METHODOLOGY:

The research method followed here is empirical research. A total of 203 samples have been
collected. The samples have been collected through a non-probability- convenient sampling
method. The sample frame taken here is through online in and around chennai. The
independent variables are gender, age, occupation, educational qualification, residence. The
dependent variables are related to socioeconomic factors related to voting .The statistical tool
used in this study is graphical representation.

Data analysis:

Figure1:

Legend: fig 1 represents the relation between socio-economic status and voter rights with
gender.
Figure 2:

Legend: fig2 represents the noticeable trend in violation of voting behaviours among people
with locality.
Figure 3:

Legend:fig 3 represents economic policies has a direct influence with respect to occupation

Figure 4:
Legend: fig 4 represents the locality of different respondents and their opinion on the
statement socio-economic inequality plays a role in shaping the voting pattern in our country.
Figure 5:

Legend: fig5 represents the age of the respondents compared to the statement socio-
economic inequality plays a role in shaping the voting pattern.
Figure 6:

Legend: fig 6 represents economic policies has a direct influence with respect to age.
Figure 7:

Legend: fig7 represents the noticeable trend in violation of voting behaviours among people
with respect to occupation.
Table 1:

Legend: The above figure depicts the chi square test on whether economic policies have a
direct influence on the voting behaviour of the individual with respect to age.
Table 2:

Legend: The above figure depicts the chi square test on the relation between socio-economic
status and voter rights with respect to occupation.

Table 3:
Legend: The above figure depicts the chi square test on whether economic policies has a
direct influence with respect to occupation.

RESULTS
Most of the female respondents have chosen negative correlation (24.63%) and positive
correlation (23.65%) on the statement what is the relationship between socio-economic status
and voter rights, the male respondents have chosen negative correlation at (6.90%) and lastly,
others have mostly chosen positive correlation at (6.40%) (figure 1) Most of the respondents
who reside in urban areas have chosen unpredictable variations at (18.72%) on the statement,
the noticeable trend in violation of voting behaviours among people with locality. Then
comes, respondents who reside in rural areas have also chosen unpredictable variations at
(10.84%) and lastly respondents who reside in sub-urban areas have chosen recently
changing according to predictions at (6.90%) (figure 2) Most of the respondents who are
private employees have chosen neutral (18.23%) on the statement that economic policies
have a direct influence on the voting behaviour of the individual. Respondents who are self-
employed have also chosen neutral at (10.34%), then the respondents who are working as
public servants have chosen agree (5.67%) and the rest have mixed opinions (figure 3) Most
of the respondents who reside in the urban areas have chosen yes at (35.47%) on the
statement that socio-economic inequality plays a role in shaping the voting pattern in our
country. Then, majority of the respondents who reside in rural areas have chosen yes at
(26.60%) and lastly majority of the respondents who reside in sub-urban areas have also
chosen yes at (11.82%) (figure 4) Most of the respondents who are between the ages of 25-
34 have chosen yes (30.05%) on the statement that socio-economic inequality plays a role in
shaping the voting pattern in our country. Then, respondents between the ages of 18-24 have
mostly chosen yes at (20.69%), majority of the respondents between the age of 35-44 have
also chosen yes (14.78%) and lastly most of the respondents who are above 45 have also
chosen yes at (8.37%) (figure 5) Most of the respondents between the ages of 25-34 have
chosen neutral at (15.27%) on the statement that economic policies have a direct influence on
the voting behaviour of the individual. Then, majority of the respondents who are between
the age of 18- 24 have also chosen neutral at (9.57%), most of the respondents between the
age of 35-44 have also chosen neutral at (9.36%) and lastly respondents who are above 45
have mixed opinions (figure 6) Most of the respondents who are private employees have
chosen unpredictable variations at (17.73%) on the statement, the noticeable trend in
violation of voting behaviours among people, most of the respondents who are self-employed
have chosen common pattern over time at (8.37%) and others have mixed opinions (figure 7)
Shows the chi square test on whether economic policies have a direct influence with respect
to age. The p value is 0.377 which is greater than 0.05, therefore null hypothesis is not
rejected (table 1) shows the chi square test on the relation between socio-economic status and
voter rights with respect to occupation. The p value is 0.000 which is lesser than 0.05,
therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. There is a significant relationship between socio-
economic status and voter rights with respect to occupation and hence it is alternative
hypothesis. (table 2) shows the chi square test on whether economic policies have a direct
influence with respect to occupation. The p value is 0.000 which is lesser than 0.05, therefore
the null hypothesis is rejected. There is a significant relationship on whether economic
policies has a direct influence with respect to occupation and hence it is alternative
hypothesis (table 3)

DISCUSSION

Most of the female respondents have chosen negative correlation on the statement about the
relationship between socio-economic status and voter rights because Structural inequalities
within societies can disproportionately affect marginalised groups, including women from
lower socio-economic backgrounds, leading their answer (figure 1) Most of the respondents
who reside in urban areas have chosen unpredictable variations at (18.72%) on the statement,
the noticeable trend in violation of voting behaviours among people with locality because
urban areas often experience rapid demographic shifts due to migration, gentrification, and
other factors. (figure 2) Most of the respondents who are private employees have chosen
neutral (18.23%) on the statement that economic policies have a direct influence on the
voting behaviour of the individual because some private employees may be skeptical of the
direct influence of economic policies on voting behaviour due to perceived inefficiencies or
corruption within the political system. (figure 3) Most of the respondents who reside in the
urban areas have chosen yes on the statement that socio-economic inequality plays a role in
shaping the voting pattern in our country because urban areas often concentrate wealth and
poverty in close proximity, making socio-economic inequality more visible, leading to their
answer. (figure 4) Most of the respondents who are between the ages of 25- 34 have chosen
yes on the statement that socio-economic inequality plays a role in shaping the voting pattern
in our country because young adults are typically more connected to information sources
such as social media, news outlets, and online platforms, which provide insights into socio-
economic issues and their implications for society. (figure 5) Most of the respondents
between the ages of 25-34 have chosen neutral on the statement that economic policies have a
direct influence on the voting behaviour of the individual because young adults may seek to
maintain a neutral stance to avoid aligning themselves with any particular political ideology
or party. (figure 6) Most of the respondents who are private employees have chosen
unpredictable variations on the statement, the noticeable trend in violation of voting
behaviours among people because private employees may have varying levels of access to
information about political candidates, parties, and issues. (figure 7) shows that the null
hypothesis is not rejected as there is no significant relationship between the age of the
respondents and economic policies have a direct influence on the voting behaviour of the
individual (table 1) shows that the null hypothesis is rejected as there is a significant
relationship between socio-economic status and voter rights with respect to occupation of the
respondents and hence it is alternative hypothesis (table 2) shows that the null hypothesis is
rejected as there is a significant relationship on whether economic policies has a direct
influence with respect to occupation and hence it is alternative hypothesis (table 3)