What causes voter turnout? While many voter theories could attempt to answer this question, I am going to focus on both the Rational Choice Theory and the Social Network Theory. The Rational Choice Theory is the view that people make rational choices based on their goals, and those choices govern their behavior. Even if it does not cost much to vote, the costs of voting may still outweigh benefits thus the Rational Choice Theory creates a paradox known as the “Paradox of Voting.” Although completely separate, the Social Network Theory, according to some theorists corrects the Paradox of Voting but it isn’t necessarily better at explaining voter turnout on its own. Analyzing Rational Choice and Social Network together however gives a better …show more content…
However, similar to what was discussed in class, because social networks are typically large groups then changes of individual voters may not necessarily be problematic to the general cause of a group despite the unreliability of political loyalties. Nevertheless, the group mobilization theory explains that people join groups not fully for the collective good, but also to be part of a group. More specifically, voters want to get the satisfaction of voting and be accepted as a group member. So although the Social Network Theory isn’t perfect, it is still effective in a rational choice model as long as the group is large enough and the model focuses on group identity and the satisfaction obtained by being part of the group. This further emphasizes it is necessary to analyze both theories (Rational Theory and Social Network) together to explain voter …show more content…
These theories can be combined because a rational person might vote if they believe that if they do not, their social group will shun them. If they care more about their acceptance within the group and think that the rest of the group is going to vote, they will also vote since their standing in their group is extremely important to them. This is especially true with young voters, for example; in the current presidential candidacy run most of Bernie Sanders’ supporters are millenials. This is because the millennial generation has been exposed to a social network that supports civil rights during an era of civic engagement. Although voting is positive, the problem of low voter turnout still exists.
But what about those who are not influenced to vote through these theories? Social network theorists would assume that people who do not vote either do not care about belonging to a social network, or their social network doesn’t prioritize voting.They may also believe the costs of voting heavily outweigh the benefits they would receive from voting. Ultimately, while the social network theory is not perfect, it helps identify a rational reason for why some people vote and others
For instance, Menand writes, “The fraction of the electorates that responds to substantive political argument is hugely outweighed by the fraction that responds to slogans, misinformation...random personal association.” Mass voters mostly pursue the wrong or irrelevant information that are irrelevant to the election; thus lead them to vote for the candidates which they do not really want. Their choices mostly lack rationalities. Many voters who are slightly informative think that they are participating in a certain issue and considering the value of the candidates; yet most of them do not have adequate information and knowledge in understanding the meaning of political terms. Voters lack judgment on their government and candidates, their minds are easily being brainwashed by a small amount of people who has informative approaches in participating governmental issue, and affect their
"Miller light and bud light…either way you end up with a mighty weak beer!" This is how Jim Hightower (a Texan populist speaker) described the choices that the U.S. electorate had in the 2000 elections. This insinuates that there is a clear lack of distinction between the parties. Along with numerous others, this is one of the reasons why the turnout is so low in the U.S. elections. In trying to explain the low figures at the U.S. elections, analysts have called American voters apathetic to indifferent to downright lazy. I disagree that the 50% (in recent elections) of voters that fail to turnout to vote are lazy and that they have just reason not too. I will also show that the problem lies within the system itself in that the institutional arrangements, electoral and governmental, do not create an environment that is conducive to mass participation. I will address these main issues and several others that have an effect on voter participation. In doing so I will compare America to other established democracies.
Dubner and Levitt make their argument by first taking the reader through their own thought process of why people vote in the first place. They came up with three possibilities. First, that some people still believe they can effect an election. Second, maybe people vote in the same idea that they play the lottery, for the fun and spirit of winning on such a slim margin. Third, some people have the idea that voting is our civic duty, and they’ll feel guilty for not voting. Getting into why people vote shows the reader that voting is really not that important. If the reader just recently voted, they would look at this and realize why they actually voted, and understand more where Dubner and Levitt are coming
Singh, S., & Judd, T. (2013). Compulsory Voting and the Dynamics of Partisan Identification. European Journal of Political research, 52(2), 188-211. Retrieved from http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/details.xqy?uri=/03044130/v52i0002/188_cvatdopi.xml
Before getting into these theories I feel it is important to provide a few important definitions, as well as, some important information to assure we are all on the same page. First, I would like to address the term, voter turnout. According to the Merriam- Webster dictionary (voter) turnout is the number of people who go to or participate in s...
The Chartist movement (a working class political movement) in 1840 believed “People had no one else but themselves to blame for the actions of their politicians” (Nash). What Mr. Nash and the chartist movement believe couldn’t be more on the spot. This country has gotten to the point where people find it hard to walk down their street to the elementary school where the voting polls are, and take a few minutes to cast a vote. A vote that millions of people around the world wish they were able to have them selves. With all the political suffrage that goes on through the world and people forced to love a leader, these no-shows should be thankful to live in a democracy. A place where elections aren’t rigged and the people are truly heard. This is why the topic of voting turnout needs to be raised. Also it’s very annoying to hear people complaining about our President when they did not even vote. It’s a very bad habit to not vote, and it needs to change with the younger citizens of this country. Helping younger people see the importance of voting needs to start with technological and educational ideas while expanding all the way to social event ideas. Only then will America’s ability to find answers to voting turnout increase.
Among the many ways Americans can participate in politics, voting is considered one of the most common and important ways for Americans to get involved. The outcome of any election, especially at the national level, determines who will be making and enforcing the laws that all Americans must abide by. With this in mind one might assume that all Americans are active voters, but studies show the voter turnout is actually astonishingly low. With this unsettling trend it is important to know what statistics say about voter turnout as was as the four major factors that influence participation: Socioeconomic status, education, political environment, and state electoral laws, in order to help boost turnout in future elections.
1. How can we explain the low voting turnout, and low participation in general, in Texas? Consider how political culture, socio-economics, race/ethnicity, age, institutional laws etc. may affect these low rates.
Perrella, Andrea. “Overview of Voter Behaviour Theories. In Elections, Edited by Heather MacIvor. 221-249.Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications, 2010.
Voter turnout, according to the text, “. . .means the portion of the eligible citizens who actually cast ballots--not the portion of those registered, . . . (142).” Data reveals that the voter turnout of Texas is relatively lower than that of the United States as a whole. During presidential elections, voter turnout is higher than that of state and local elections. For example, the text states that in the 2008 presidential balloting, Texas voter turnout was about eight percentage points below the national turnout level(142). However, the voter turnout of the United States compared to that of other countries is lower than the global level. In a graph presented for voter turnout rate of registered voters, the United States is located on the bottom of the list. From U.S News, Flock states,“The U.S has one of the lowest voter turnout rates of any rich democracy in the world(Flock).” Factors that influence voting around the world, for example, may be the choice to submit a vote online, such as in India, rather than going into a v...
...n lead to a party not to move towards the centre like imperfect knowledge. A conclusion can be drawn that, as in the case of many other general explanations about politics the Down’s model can only explain how parties align themselves in general elections to certain extent. Decisions made by political parties are indirectly made by humans and the way in which human behave and take action will never be explained by just one factor or model specially one that assumes that the human complexity can be simplified by economic .One possible field of further research would be to investigate, the different ways in which the use of new technologies and social media can give the political parties a clearer and more importantly a constant and interactive view of what the electorate think, based on the policies they discuss the most in social platforms like Twitter or Facebook.
Voting is one of the citizens’ rights living in a country. In the past, not everyone can vote. Voting used to be for only white American men. However, our ancestors fought for that rights. Eventually, any American who are older than eighteen can vote, despite their race or gender. In addition, voter turnout is used to keep track of the voting. It is the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election. Unfortunately, the voter turnout has been decreasing over time, and it means that there are less and fewer people who actually show up and vote. This essay will discuss the voter turnout in Harris County, Texas.
Furthermore, categorized political participation into three categories: Cognitive, Expressive, and Organizational. Cognitive Participation is how citizens obtain information about issues by watching television news, listening to radio, talking with friends and co-workers, readings magazines, and responding to contacts from the political parties they belong to. Cognitive Participation is class related. Thus the lower socioeconomic status, the lower the rate of cognitive participation. Furthermore, since the poor are more reliant on less intellectually demanding media and belong to groups at much lower rates, the quality of their information is lower. Expressive Participation is how citizens express opinions to others. The lower the socioeconomic status, the lower the rate of expressive participation. Since conversation is an energizing act, this fact means that fewer of the poor and more of the rich are stimulated to be active in other ways. In addition, the article claims that the poor are more likely to have friends who are less informed and belong to groups with fewer resources. Therefore the quality of their information is lower than that of other classes. Lastly, organizational Participation is based on the idea that organizations provide a forum within which people discuss issues and stimulate each other to participate. Furthermore, groups often become politically mobilized when their interests or those of their members are affected. Thus, gaining information, talking with others and joining groups—provide a basis for subsequent types of action, either directly by individuals or through their
All that can really be seen is what appears before ourselves. What we see on billboards, television, or radio show constantly the views of a new runner for politics whom proclaims what he or she wishes to accomplish. Listening to it, one can create a thought of why did they choose that topic for an argument? Today not all people vote so the ones who do are the people these “runners” focus on. Why would they fight to create increased pay to schools if all the voters are the elderly? Why not focus upon retirement benefits or healthcare? As citizens we have complaints on how the government manages our money and yet we do not do anything about it. Voting gives a chance. If certain groups grew in votes different ideas would be made for these “runners”. Say the young adults started to vote a lot more. We could have schooling benefits, less tuition fees, higher education levels, and possibly a large increase in jobs. One United Kingdom publisher explains, “If you vote, the campaigners urge, the politicians will have to listen to you and things will change.”(Kirkup, The Telegraph). Also youth have the longest time, and live what the country becomes. To conclude, voting doesn’t take long and doesn’t require almost any effort. All it requires just an open mind and yet people just do not realize this opportunity. Right now we could be living in the richest most opportunistic country if everyone could understand what can become of our views. Life could be looked forward not
Peers play an important role in guiding the new voter. Regardless of what people might say, they want to fit in. In order to avoid being different people will tend to follow others and have the same...