Why Do Voters Vote The Way They Do?

Imagine it is the 1960’s: conflict in Vietnam had sparked widespread protest at American college campuses, people all over the country were reading the The Feminine Mystique and fighting for increased equality among the sexes, and the Civil Rights Movement was at its peak. African Americans throughout America were uniting for the common cause of equality, however differing ideology and beliefs regarding how equality could be achieved divided them. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X rose as prominent leaders in the fight against racial inequality, the latter typically credited with the development of more violent methodology which excluded white involvement and conceived the movement of “Black Power.” The Black Panthers, members of a political party formed by college students Huey Newton and Bobby Seale in 1966, are typically associated with the idea of black power and the legacy of Malcolm X despite the fact that he had died a year prior to the party’s founding. While the idea of black power is easily and mis-conceivably associated with the idea of black supremacy and violence, The Black Panther Party primarily sought a spot for African Americans next to that of whites, not above. The Black Panther Party, despite its violent appearance and legacy, made a positive influence on American history through its platform based on equality, human rights, and patriotism.

To every political system there are many positives and negatives and one critique of compulsory voting systems is that informal and uninterested voting is increased. It has been advocated that compulsory voting brings a large amount of “uninterested voters” to the polls and in turn cast votes that are clearly inconsistent with their own political values compared to those who are more informed and motivated voluntary voters (Selb and Latchat, 2009). In this case the primary concern is when people are forced to vote they will either pick a candidate at random or spoil their ballot which consequently, does not make the outcome of the election representative of the people’s interests. If certain individuals are not interested in politics they should not be forced to contribute in one of the most salient political statements practiced in Canada (Selb and Latchat, 2009). They have the right to choose their level of political participation.

While historical events serve as good starting points for analyzing the politicization process, Pulido places a particular emphasis on understanding how the historical setting, in tandem with racial and economic hierarchies, influenced the activities of Third World Left activist groups. A compelling example in this regard is the relationship between the Black Panther Party (BPP) and whites during this time period. The BPP, being a Third World activist group which espoused a “rhetoric of Third World solidarity”, understandably did not allow whites to join the group (163). Nevertheless, the BPP did work together with whites, who provided “resources, skills and connections that the Panthers desperately needed,” especially in legal matters (164). The cooperation between the two groups suggests, on the part of the Panthers, an understanding of the underlying racial hierarchy and the resulting economic hierarchy, and an attempt to use this awareness to further their goals. This is a sensible choice, especially considering the fact that the BPP was founded on the idea of mobilizing the “lumpen proletariat” to protect their own (144), leaving them with little

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

Do looks really matter in an election for presidency? Or does the plans and ideas that a certain person has matter? The 1960’s election between the two nominees for Presidency are, John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Nixon should win the election, because he is a strong leader, he has great ideas, and has confidence. Although Senator Kennedy may look like a better fit for the role of the President, Richard Nixon has better plans and thoughts to make America the best it can be.

Revolutionary Black Nationalism: The Black Panther Party takes an in-depth look into the Black Panther Party as a specific example for revolutionary nationalism and analyzes thoroughly the positive contributions they made as well as the negative aspects of the party. Jessica C. Harris, who was obsessed with the history of the party, did research and wrote the paper. This journal (pages from 409-421) is from The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 86, No. 3. (Summer, 2001). The whole paper embodies author’s broad scope, exquisite writing skills and clear logic in analyzing a controversial topic.

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

Philip Converse’s article argues against the idea of Democratic theory which assumes that voters hold ideological values that land on the political spectrum, which in turn, are expected to align with a candidate’s platform. I believe in modern day politics, this is becoming irrelevant in Canada due to the tendency for policies offered by major parties shifting towards centrist-oriented. For instance, the 2017 BC Liberal election; the Green party held the balance of power and was expected to join a coalition with the NDP. In retaliation, the BC Liberals rebuilt their campaign platform in the anticipation of another election being held. The new campaign offered many of the identical promises that the NDP proposed. Moreover, this is supported by Converse’s study classifying distinct voters into five categories. He found that voters were unable to precisely and accurately identify and recognize the ideological differences separating parties. This draws into question the legitimacy and political knowledge of the general Canadian voter. As Zaller and Fournier also found, Canadian voters, in general,

Texas has been known for having the worst voter turnout in the country; even though it has one of the largest population in the U.S.. Why is that and is it possible to change that? The main contributors to why people do not vote, according to political scientists, stems from income, education, ethnicity, age and history of voting. If someone is poor, young, not white, and/or lacks a college degree, than they less likely to vote. People tend to think, “how will my one vote matter?” during election time. In recent years, studies have shown that social media is starting to become a contributor in politics. We live in an age where technology is almost everywhere. Where there is technology, there is social media as well.

In this theory, the independent variable is age and the dependent variable is turnout specifically for the Conservative party. In other words, mature adults defined as twenty-five year olds and onwards, were more likely to vote for the Conservative party than young adults, categorized as eighteen to twenty-four year olds. The possibility that the relationship is the other way round can be dismissed because an individual has to be at a particular age before they can vote. However, age is not the only factor which influences an individual’s decision to vote, from the literature review one could theorise that there is a relationship between education and age itself as a result, this has an effect on turnout rates for the Conservative party. In other words, individuals that go to university and get a degree tend develop economic values thus, making them

“If voting made any difference would they let us do it”~ Mark Twain. Why do we vote? We vote for rights. At first only white people were allowed the important right to vote. Then the 15th Amendment was passed on February 3, 1870 which gave African American people the right to vote. Voting is what makes the world fair. When you vote you honor the challenge given to us by our Founding Father Benjamin Franklin. When you vote you get a chance to tell everybody what you think.

Do you understand that we could be forced to except a leader that we don’t like or even the leader might not like us? People take for granted that we have the ability to vote. In the United States of America we get the privilege to vote on the leader of our country, but so many of us forget that. 60% of people in America voted this year, and 40% did not. I think that is terrible because out of all the elections this was probably the most important one. .

Turnout and tactical voting are driven by remarkably similar processes. Both are shown to depend on the strategic situation in the constituency and on the relative strength of preference between parties. Also both are influenced by party campaigning and the level of political interest, knowledge and trust. Tactical non-voting creates the potential for selection bias in models of vote choice. A model of tactical voting with sample selection suggests that the main conclusions are robust.

In the most basic understanding, representatives, in a representative democracy, serve as vehicles for their constituents. They exist to transmit constituent interests into law. However, due to a number of variables, there are instances where representatives choose to vote in contrast with their constituents. For this reason, it is relevant to examine how these diversions in voting affect the level of support constituents award their representative. This is important when considering the importance placed on the representative-constituent relationship, Examining such a question is pertinent due to the nature of democratic representation. In order for democracy to be effective voters must trust that their representatives will uphold their duties and obligations. Furthermore, establishing support and trustworthiness between the parties encourages communication, and thus, advancements democracy. Literature that examines the question of representative voting, and therefore, support can be separated into two categories i.e. research that examines the issue from a constituent perspective,and research that focuses on the resulting re-election expenses that arise from diverging from constituent interests.

In a far less distant past than many of us care to envision, very few people experienced the luxury of having the right to vote. In fact, the pool was so small, only wealthy Caucasian males were given that right. When considering the vastness and diverseness of the population of our country, how could such a small fragment of it have ever possibly represented the views and preferences of the people as a whole effectively? Simple, it couldn’t. Therein lies the importance of voting rights. The right to vote regardless of race, gender, or condition was one of the hardest won civil rights ever achieved, and people should exercise that right so officials who best represent their voice (that went unheard for hundreds of years) are put into