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

In recent years, it has been increasingly apparent that European Parliament election turnout is on the decline, with just 35.6% of British citizens casting their vote in 2014. This is remarkably low, especially when viewed alongside other national decisions such as the referendum for Britain to leave the European Union, which received a staggering 72.2% turnout. However, this decline was not

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).

In the 1999 European elections the voter turnout for Britain was just 23%. The party ‘List’ method of elections has caused a great deal of controversy and there

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)

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

This occurred due to embourgeoisement, which was the tendency of the better-off working class people with aspirations to become more like the middle classes in their social outlook and voting behaviour. This new type of class was classified by Crewe as the “new working class” of the new estates and new service economy of the South. The voting behaviour had been changed, instead of voting for Labour the “new working class” were more inclined to the tax cut, nationalisation and union policies of the Conservatives. Also, demographic changes lead to inner cities emptying and their electoral base eroded, whilst the South grew where it had a concentration of Conservative voters. Therefore, the long-term factors of social class and party identification have become less important in shaping the voting behaviour, mainly as the working class was less aligned to Labour. However, the general election results of 2005 suggest there is still a small link between social class and voting as Labour had a clear majority against the Conservatives in some of the inner cities, where the concentration of working class lie.

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.

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

Data used for this term paper was obtained from Houghton Mifflin Company through the 1996 Voter's Data Set found as part of the Crosstabs package. The dependent variable (rows) I chose to highlight the 1996 U.S. presidential election voting pattern was the Final Voting Choice. The independent variables (columns) I chose were personal traits such as education, income, age, religious affiliations, race, and gender. The data made available by the Crosstabs program was compiled in a statistically scientific way by a national survey of citizens before and after the 1996 election. The objective of this research is to determine which of the personal traits of the electorate has a positive, negative, or an indifferent impact on voter turnout. Therefore, I have made the following five assertions in the below listed hypotheses:

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

Class-Based Political Parties and Political Outcomes. While in a majority of political models class is perceived to hold modest impact in regard to voting patterns, it is imperative to consider how alterations in the class structure informs political outcomes. In analyzing the class concept, it should be noted that the workers and capitalists differ in both their amount of income, as well as the mechanism they deploy in the acquisition of the income. Consequently, it is feasible to utilize the relational as well as gradational theories in analyzing class-based politics. A majority of persons employ a fundamentally gradational notion of class in exploring the different political persuasions, and voting patterns of the affluent, the middle class and the underprivileged. However, a majority of systematic studies on class and politics focuses on the relational

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,

Less than 50% of eligible voters will turn out to vote at national elections, and at the local elections there are less than 25%. There is a correlation between voting behavior and the demographic of those voting.

Not every member of the public will be interested in politics or in fact have a clear understanding of the political system in Britain and this could affect the voter’s outcome. For example, an individual might not understand the significance of their vote to a political question, and that it can have long term effects that they may not take into consideration whilst voting. Furthering this point, the public may be easily influenced by campaigns of newspapers, notable tabloids, or by wealthy vested interests who can afford to spend large amounts of money on a campaign. This suggests that referendums are not always a true representation of what the public wants an outcome to be.