Why we vote the way we do

September 15, 2008,

(PhysOrg.com) -- So you're standing in the election booth. You look at the names in front of you: McCain and Obama. Chances are, by now you know who you're going to vote for. But what went into that decision?

Researchers at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research (ISR) have been trying to understand voter behavior since the presidential election of 1948, when the institute, then the newly founded Survey Research Center, launched what eventually became the American National Election Studies (ANES).

The national survey was carried out through face-to-face interviews with the same sample of respondents just before and after the election. Based on the power and promise of that data, researchers asked the same basic set of questions for the next presidential election, and have continued to do so ever since. "The American Voter," by ISR researchers and ANES survey designers Angus Campbell, Philip Converse, Warren Miller and Donald Stokes, quickly became the classic text on voter behavior. Many of the central claims of their 1960 book, based on survey data from the 1952 and 1956 presidential elections, have guided thinking about voter behavior to this day.

Their analysis produced some unexpected conclusions: independents were not the thoughtful and informed voters most observers assumed them to be, but instead were less interested and engaged than partisans, and the average voter was surprisingly unsophisticated as most citizens didn’t make their voting decisions based on policy questions, nor did they hold consistently liberal or conservative views across issues.

The recently published "The American Voter Revisited," by ISR researcher William Jacoby and colleagues Michael Lewis-Beck, Helmut Norpoth and Herbert Weisberg, updates the context of the original book to current times, catalogues how the field has evolved in the intervening years, and tests whether the theories in play more than 50 years ago still apply in the political environment of the 21st century.

Jacoby says the most interesting finding is the extent of overall agreement with the original, particularly given "the vast changes in the mass media, and the supposed decline of American political parties, and the supposed increase in the sophistication of the American public."

But the book illuminates current politics and reveals some changes. For both the 2000 and 2004 elections, the analysis showed that negative perceptions of Democratic candidates Al Gore and John Kerry were more pivotal in putting a Republican in the White House than were positive perceptions of George Bush. Social groupings long identified with the two main political parties—such as labor with Democrats and business with Republicans—still exist, but are not as pronounced or clear-cut as they were. There are more independents than in the 1950s and more of them are politically active and informed. In addition, while the number of citizens who hold consistent ideological views is still small, it has increased from about 10 percent to almost 20 percent, chiefly due, Jacoby says, to “an unusually polarized period of American politics.”

Jacoby is eagerly anticipating the ANES data for the 2008 election. He predicts that the trend of ideological differentiation between the two parties will continue, showing up in stronger-than-usual policy orientations among voters. As for that voter in the booth and whether he or she will be capable of making an informed decision, Jacoby is quick to stress that "The American Voter" never said that voters are fools, and that both the original and the latest round of analysis allow for some optimism in that regard.

"Voters are not capricious," he said. "Using the limited tools that voters employ, they vote correctly most of the time and make the vote that is relatively consistent with their interests."

Provided by University of Michigan

Explore further: Algorithm proves voter ID law's discriminating intent

Related Stories

Algorithm proves voter ID law's discriminating intent

January 24, 2018

In 2011, the Texas state legislature passed a bill requiring that residents present certain types of identification before being allowed to vote. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Texas, arguing that ...

Asocial media

January 19, 2018

The incidence of abusive commentary on social media is rising. Media specialists Carsten Reinemann and Christoph Neuberger are exploring the grounds for this development, and have invited journalist Dunja Hayali to discuss ...

U.S. political parties more polarized than voters

December 21, 2017

Despite widespread perceptions of rising political polarization in the United States, the American public is no more polarized than it was before the Reagan era, according to a Stanford scholar.

Recommended for you

Unprecedented study of Picasso's bronzes uncovers new details

February 17, 2018

Musee national Picasso-Paris and the Northwestern University/Art Institute of Chicago Center for Scientific Studies in the Arts (NU-ACCESS) have completed the first major material survey and study of the Musee national Picasso-Paris' ...

Humans will actually react pretty well to news of alien life

February 16, 2018

As humans reach out technologically to see if there are other life forms in the universe, one important question needs to be answered: When we make contact, how are we going to handle it? Will we feel threatened and react ...

Using Twitter to discover how language changes

February 16, 2018

Scientists at Royal Holloway, University of London, have studied more than 200 million Twitter messages to try and unravel the mystery of how language evolves and spreads.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

4 / 5 (6) Sep 15, 2008
The working class seems suprised when they elect a rich businessman/politician and he turns out to be a rich businessman who could care less about the middle class, and it's because voters vote for the candidate who they think they want to be, and not who would do the best job. Most people, given the choice, would be rich and popular over smart and competent. While we take policies into consideration, presidential policies are nothing more than mechanisms for relating to the voters. Notice that they only make stands on nearly polar policies. When there are only two stances it's easy to pick the right one and agree with at least 50% of the people. They never take a hard stance on issues with many options and a spread consensus, because they risk alienating a majority of voters. We all want to be individuals, but we associate and support the most generic individuals imaginable, and the candidates know this.

4 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2008
i'm probably voting libertarian, myself. i disagree on several issues, admittedly (as i do with the major parties); but as i'm a resident in a state that's solid for democrats, i see it as a way to put some new ideas about government out there without swinging the results one way or another.
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2008
Ya, I will be voting for Ron Paul, wait a minute, the dishonest media trashed him!

I wont vote for crazy McCain, or change the world Obama, or any other number of political crooks!!
2 / 5 (1) Sep 16, 2008
People vote with their personal interests in mind. Most people are selfish and will steal your money through taxes, kill people overseas, and take away your freedom simply because they are so self-centered that they do not think about others' rights.

Candidates should have to pass a critical thinking and moral test for eligibility to be in office, because we can't trust the average citizen to vote intelligently and morally. From your responsible world-citizen.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.