Voting and Non- Voting Theories

Voting and Non- Voting Theories: 2004 Presidential Election

This article can also be found on ezinearticles.com: http://EzineArticles.com/?id=945651

In applying theories of voting and non-voting behavior to 2004 presidential election, it is better to have some explanation on the theories themselves. Theories of voting are put into 2 categories: party identification and issue voting. If in an election people vote according to their party ID, regardless of who the candidate of their party is, we can say their model of voting behavior is party identification. But if people vote regardless of party affiliations, it is said that their voting behavior is issue voting. In the issue voting model, people put more emphasis on the candidates’ personalities and characteristics rather than their party affiliation. Besides, he issues of the time are also very crucial to their decision. In other word they look at candidates’ personalities and the position they take over specific issues of the time. This can be done either prospectively or retrospectively. In the prospective way, the voter looks at the policies of the parties and selects the on that resembles his/her position on the issues more. In the retrospective way, the voter only looks at the achievments and failures of the candidates as measure.

Non-voting behavior also has 2 explanations: institutional and socio-political. The difficult registration procedures that are mostly on the shoulders of the voter are one of the institutional explanations. 2 explanations exist in the socio-political branch; people are either happy or disillusioned with their conditions and for this they don’t participate or they participate in the process of decision-making in other ways.

I think the model of issue voting is more applicable to the voters in 2004 election. It is because the other model is not applicable. Let’s observe some data regarding party ID:

		Rep.		Dem.		Ind.		No. of Polls
			%		%		%
	2004
	Fourth quarter		31		32		31		4
	Third quarter		31		34		30		7
	Second quarter		28		33		32		2
	First quarter		30		33		29		7
	2003
	Fourth quarter		29		32		30		6
	Third quarter		29		32		31		6
	Second quarter		29		31		34		3
	First quarter		32		32		31		5
	2002
	Fourth quarter		29		33		32		4
	Third quarter		30		32		33		5
	Second quarter		31		30		33		3
	First quarter		31		30		35		2
	2001
	Fourth quarter		31		32		31		10
	Third quarter		30		33		30		5
	Second quarter		29		34		30		4
	First quarter		28		34		34		5

 (The data is taken from http://www.publicopinionpros.com/features/2005/aug/hugick.asp)

“The back and forth movement seen in party ID over the course of election year 2004 provides strong evidence that it is not a particularly stable measure. All other things being equal, we would expect party ID to change little from quarter to quarter, but experience shows that it can and does change direction, often in an unpredictable manner.”¹

Now consider the following statistics. The table “displays the demographic characteristics of the first major shift in party ID:

--2001 Pre-9/11--

2001-2002 -Early Post 9/11-

		Rep		Dem		Rep		Dem		Margin Shift		Minimum N
			%		%		%		%		%/party
	Total		28		34		32		31		+7R		7,270
	Men		30		29		33		27		+5R		3,515
	Women		26		38		31		35		+8R		3,755
	White		33		29		37		26		+7R		5,602
	Black		5		68		10		64		+9R		677
	Hispanic		17		43		25		36		+15R		490
	18-29		24		32		28		28		+8R		1,446
	30-49		29		34		34		30		+9R		2,789
	50-64		26		37		33		31		+13R		1,649
	65+		32		36		32		40		+4R		1,247
	College grad+		31		33		37		29		+10R		2,557
	Some college		30		33		33		28		+8R		1,693
	HS or less		26		35		29		34		+4R		2,946
	Northeast		24		36		29		33		+8R		1,355
	Midwest		28		31		32		28		+7R		1,882
	South		30		35		32		34		+3R		2,622
	West		28		33		33		28		+10R		1,411
	Southern white		39		27		39		26		+1R		1,907
	Non-South white		31		30		35		26		+8R		3,695
	Urban		22		39		26		37		+6R		2,152
	Suburban		29		33		34		28		+10R		3,501
	Rural		32		30		34		29		+3R		1,617

           (The data is taken from http://www.publicopinionpros.com/features/2005/aug/hugick.asp)

“Moving from the pre-9/11 to early post-9/11 period, the Republicans gained ground across the board, but those gains were generally larger among subgroups who had been less supportive of George W. Bush and his policies. The "rally 'round the flag" effect helped push Bush's approval rating to a level not seen since his father received close to 90 percent approval in the Newsweek poll after the Persian Gulf War victory, and it also seemed to boost the Republican Party's standing with those who don't generally lean that way. Republican gains were more pronounced among women than men. The Republicans improved their position significantly among African Americans, Hispanics, and whites who live outside the South” ^1.

As you see, the statistics show major changes in the party ID of the voters, which is called party dealignment. In cases of party dealignment, people no longer consider party affiliations and tend to focus on the issues of the day. David Remer gives a list of the issues that voters in 2004 election faced:

·  “Voter party identification

·      Political fund raising.

·      Public vs. Private education.

·      Schools: Local Standards vs. National Standards.

·      Public Debt.

·      War Powers: congressional vs. executive.

·      Government: open or secret.

·      One party or multiple party government.

·      Economic Mix.

·      Lobbyist Power.

·      National Security: Offensive vs. Defensive.

·      Wealth Distribution.

·      Media Responsibility and Ownership.

·      Public Resources: To privatize or not.

·      Globalization: Diplomatic Leadership vs. Force.

·      Environment: Proactive vs. Reactive policy. “²

So the voters considered these issues as measures for electing their candidates. That’s why I call 2004 election an issue voting election.

But for those who have not voted in 2004 election, the most likely reason can be the socio-political one. In this case I think it was disillusionment with the government that prevented people from voting. People knew that whoever became the President, their conditions as a country in war abroad would not change.               

1) http://www.publicopinionpros.com/features/2005/aug/hugick3.asp

2) http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/000248.html