Theories of voting behavior

                There are several theories that seek to offer us an insight into voting behavior. Of these, the most prevalent is rational choice theory; so let us begin with that. Rational choice theory is based on an assumption that individuals are rational actors. Individuals will thereby rationalize their vote according to their own particular interests. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan; they will ask themselves “am I better off than I was four years ago?” They may also hold a rational expectation as to which party or candidate is most likely to look after their economic interest(s) in the foreseeable future. In terms of retrospective and prospective voting, the public will thereby choose between the parties/candidates and make their decision accordingly; akin to choosing between two rival brands for their custom. For this reason, rational choice theory is sometimes known as consumer choice theory.

The assumption that voters act in a rational manner certainly holds some degree of veracity, in that one can readily identify a rational explanation as to why certain groups are more inclined to support a particular party. For example, people on low incomes have a rational interest in supporting that party/candidate which is most likely to favor a redistribution of wealth and opportunity (such as President Obama’s decision to raise the federal minimum wage). Similarly, an Evangelical Christian has a rational interest in voting for that party most closely associated with the promotion of religious values.

The obvious flaw with the rational choice model is that some voters do not fall easily into these clear-cut explanations. For instance, those on low incomes living in the rural heartland of America are more inclined to support the GOP rather than the Democrats; a phenomenon explored in a book intriguingly entitled ‘What’s wrong with Kansas?’ (Frank, 2004). However, less well-off voters throughout the world also vote for right-wing parties. As such, one must place this phenomenon into a broader context. In the UK, working-class Conservative voters can be understood on the basis of class de-alignment. Such discourse is not commonly used within the states, although the term may well have some relevance to our study.

In considering why certain groups vote against their perceived rational interests, one must guard against adopting a prejudgment of some kind. It is patronizing to claim that those whom we do not share characteristics with (perhaps based on income, social class, etc.) do not know which party/candidate is in their best interests. Of more substance is the claim that some voters do not seek to rationalize their choice. They may have little detailed awareness of what the parties or candidates stand for.

Another model one might consider is the party identification model. This model suggests that we identify with a political party from an early age and remain loyal to that party from one election to the next. Identification will therefore reflect what sociologists term our primary socialization. In other words, our choice of party will derive from those norms and values acquired within the family unit. The party identification model does not hold common currency within the states, primarily because party labels are relatively weak. This may reflect a political culture which seeks to emphasize the individual over any collective identity. The party identification model is further weakened by an increase in the number of self-defined independents.

The voter context model claims that voters place their vote into a broader context, such as its relative importance. This particular model certainly casts light upon our understanding of electoral turnout. For instance, it can be used to explain why turnout for a presidential election is consistently higher than is the case for a congressional election. Electing the Head of State is of course clearly of greater importance than electing a member of Congress. The voter context model also explains why turnout tends to be higher during a genuine contest between the two parties (such as that held in a swing state). Second-order elections will tend to record a lower level of turnout.

The issues-based model claims that people make their choice based upon which party best answers their key concerns. For instance, an American citizen concerned about national security may feel that the GOP offers a more convincing set of policies than the Democrats. National security has long been an Achilles Heel for the Democrats, although President Obama can actually claim some credit on this score. Equally, a voter who wants to advance the civil rights movement may feel that the Democrats offer a more credible set of policies than their Republican opponents. The issues-based model also provides an insight as to why poorer voters might prefer the GOP over the Democrats (Bageant, 2008). Such voters may give the issue of abortion greater salience than their own personal economic circumstances. Unfortunately for us, there is always a degree of conjecture when seeking to comprehend voting behavior. It is impossible to get into the minds of those one is seeking a deeper understanding of.

                Other theories of voting behavior (such as the social structures model and the dominant ideology model) are not widely applied to the states. The social structures model states that a person’s occupation is the most important determinant of voting behavior. This does not translate well due to the limited significance of class as a means of social differentiation. Whereas social class does hold some significance within the states, we have never engaged in the same level of class-based politics as European democracies. Moreover, the whole meaning of the term ‘middle-class’ is much broader in the states than it is in other countries. Equally, the dominant ideology model requires us to buy into Marxist assumptions considering the mental means of production (Bloor, 2010). The dominant ideology model therefore exists at the margins of the whole debate.

                In summary, it is crucial to note that no theory will ever fully explain the complex arena of voting behavior. It is simply impossible to identify with scientific certainty the motivation behind why people vote. We can only make educated assumptions, even when they are seemingly supported by persuasive evidence. That is the nature of political studies, and one that we must simply recognize and accept. It is also worth noting that the rational choice theory is the most widely accepted within the field of psephology, but this might be because it offers the most logical explanation rather than necessarily being the most convincing. For me, the most perceptive insight is that offered by the economist Fischer Black. He argued that “a theory is accepted not because it is confirmed by conventional empirical tests but because researchers persuade one another that the theory is correct and relevant.” This is a really prescient observation in the field of politics because the subject matter does not, indeed cannot; invite certainty. To comprehend politics is to be comfortable with endless questioning and theorizing.