Explaining Voting Behaviour

In recent times it may be argued that personality and image has played a huge part in the voting behaviour of the electorate in the UK. The personality and image may refer to the personality of the party leader and how they present themselves in their campaign. This is a short-term factor and in a time where long-term factors are not said to play a huge role, as there is party de-alignment and a change in the class structure, perceptions of party leadership can play a huge role in determining voting behaviour. It may always have been recognised as a factor but now its influence may have

Between the years of 1945-1970 social class dominantly shaped the voting behaviour of individuals. Whilst there has been a decline in prominence of class voting: Labour remains the most popular working class party and Conservatives perform best among middle-class voters. Social classes are defined by economic and social

Today for most Australian’s the potential of what a vote can represent is lost in political apathy and some could argue that this directly relates to how the leaders of the two main political parties continually compete for the populist vote. This environment is dominated by the media portrayal of our political parties and as a result of this, policies for the long term interests of the country have become secondary to short term wins (Marsh, 2010).

As society rapidly changes with an influx of new ideas and issues, studying the college educated and those who are not will help evaluate behaviors and attitudes towards the government, ultimately, clearing the way to adaption into a modern society that perhaps offer remedies of educational and voting discrepancies or even close the gaps between political ideology or identification. Hence, this paper proposes the research question: How does education level influence political party identification.

A voter can be defined as an individual who votes, or has the right to vote, in elections. Voting behaviour is explained using the concepts of expressive voting and strategic voting. A rational voter would act more strategically, that is, the voter would vote to produce an election outcome which is as close as possible to his or her own policy preferences, rather than voting on the basis of party attachment, ideology, or social group membership (expressive voting). Strategic voting has become more important than voting on the basis of political cleavages (expressive voting), so voters have become more rational in their approach, however there is always an element of expressiveness in their behaviour. Political parties were initially formed to represent the interests of particular groups in society however, as these parties became more universal in the appeal of their policy programmes, voting behaviour shifted from expressive to strategic. This essay explores the reasons behind the declining importance of political cleavages, and the rise of strategic voting.

The sociological approach of cleavage theory emphasises the importance of people’s social positions in explaining support for political parties and voting behaviour (Lipset and Rokkan 1967). The main assumption is that political and voting behaviour are shaped by social divides such as social class, religion or geographical place of residence. Research employing a sociological approach has shown that populist parties are supported by those who find it difficult to deal with changes in social dynamics, as a result of the integration-demarcation cleavage (Kriesi et al. 2008). Empirically, populist radical right parties are supported by male, less educated, and unskilled workers; radical left populist parties are supported by unemployed, less

From 1972 to 2004, Abramowitz points out that the correlation between ideology and party identification rose from .32 to .63 showing an increase over time from a more moderate stance to a more polarized one in the engaged electorate. In the 1984 to 2004 ANES, the least interested and least informed Americans were shown to be in the middle of the liberal-conservative spectrum, while the more informed and active constituents were more likely to be more polarized. From the 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) data, Abramowitz states that even Independents leaned more liberal or conservative than weak Democrats or weak Republicans respectively. Again, nonvoters made up forty-one percent of the center of the distribution affirming that only the nonvoters are non-ideological and non-polarized. In regards to social groups, Abramowitz concluded that religious commitment mattered more than social status, but overall, voter’s ideological beliefs made a greater impact on party loyalty than being part of any social

Despite some proponents of compulsory voting claiming that rising rates of informal voting are due to a lack of respect towards politics research suggests that it is not the case. In 2004 the electorate with the highest rate of informal voting was the NSW seat of Greenway. At 12% Greenway’s informal voting rate was twice the national average. However this was largely due to other factors, the AEC concluded that in the 2004 federal election’ The 10 divisions with the highest informality levels were in the 27 divisions with the highest non-English speaking background levels nationally’ (Hill and Young 2007). Education level is another important factor in voting rates with the lowest informal vote in 2004 held mostly in upper middle-class seats especially those the Liberals Party held including Indi, Kooyong and Higgins. The rate of informal voting can be as low as 3% in affluent electorates such as Higgins but as high as 12% in electorates such as Greenway with a large proportion of voters from non-English speaking households. (Hill and Young 2007)

As we live in a country that is home to many people of different backgrounds, age groups, genders, races, and religions, the factors of why people vote and who is more likely to vote

Two factors that influence voter turnout more so in the United States than in other countries are education and income. Those who are college-educated and receive higher incomes are much more likely to vote than those with less education and lower income. The gap is narrower in European countries because of the presence of social and labor parties not present in the United States where there is not a clear working class party. Lower income citizens are also more likely to suffer from the registration system and lack transportation to and from the polls (Patterson

A socioeconomic status is the level of education and income a person has. People with higher educations and incomes are more likely to vote than people with lower educations and incomes. When it comes to voting one's “education level is the single most important factor in predicting whether an individual will vote” (218). Other socioeconomic groups that influence whether or not a person will vote is their partisan tie. “Individuals with strong partisan ties to one of the major political parties are more likely to vote then nonpartisans or independents” (218). Nonpartisans and independents may not feel as if they owe as much to a certain party. Therefore, they don’t feel obligated to vote in an

“Is social class still the most important determinant of voting behaviour in contemporary British politics?”

A very British problem is that of class and education which is not resigned to the past but is still an issue in representation. In Parliament MPs are predominantly middle-class with over four-fifths having a business or professional background. The manual working class is severely misrepresented in Parliament, even in the Labour Party, the main party traditionally most associated with the working class. In terms of education this is also a contrast between the larger society and Parliament, with more MPs being graduates and more having attended private school, especially in the Conservative party.

Constituent opinion, interest groups and political parties all influence the voting decisions of members of Congress in various ways. However, it is ultimately up to each member to decide how to cast his/her vote on any piece of legislation. Explore each of the influences mentioned above and discuss how each could be a potential positive and negative influence on members decisions. Finally, consider these influences in light of the delegate and trustee models of representation introduced by the Framers' fears of democracy and faction. Is there a best path for members to follow in deciding how to

Many political science researchers study the forces that drive the vote. One of the earliest, and most well known, books about election studies is The American Voter. Written in 1960, the book tries to explain a model that describes what drives Americans to vote the way they do. The model suggests that social factors determine ones party identification, which determines one's issue positions and evaluation of candidate's characteristics. These forces all work together to determine how one will vote. This model may or may not still hold true today, as political researchers are not in agreement as to what exactly drives the vote. One thing that does remain true, however, is that factors such as social groups, party identification, issues,