User:R.a.dodson/sandbox

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Pretend ballot
Panamanian referendum ballot
Voting box in the 2007 French presidential election
Greek Parthenon
Purple ink on an Afghan voter's finger
Women voting in Bangladesh
Voting place indicator, United States
Electoral campaign posters in Milan, Italy
Part of the Politics series
Voting
Balloting
Ballots
Candidates and Ballot measures
Collection
Counting
Electoral systems
Plurality and majoritarian systems
Proportional and semi-proportional systems
Mixed-member systems
Voting strategies
Protest votes
Voting patterns and effects
Protest votes
Electoral fraud
Prevention
icon Politics portal

Issue voting is when

issues in elections rather than on other factors.[1][2] In the context of an election, issues include "any questions of public policy which have been or are a matter of controversy and are sources of disagreement between parties.”[3] According to the theory of issue voting, voters compare their and the candidates' respective principles in order to decide who to vote for.[4][5]

Causes

A voter does not need to have an in-depth understanding of every issue and knowledge of how a candidate stands on every issue, but rather a sense of which candidate they agree with the most.[6][7] Voters use many different tactics to rationalize their view on a particular issue. Some people look at what has happened in the past and predict how they think a particular issue will affect the future.[8] Issue voting is often contrasted with party voting.

A 2010 University of California Davis study found that voters switch between issue voting and party voting depending on how much information is available to them about a given candidate.[9] Low information elections, such as those for congressional candidates, would thus be determined by party voting, whereas presidential elections, which tend to given voters much more information about each candidate, have the potential to be issue-driven.[10]

Voters typically choose a political party to affiliate with in one of two ways.[11] The voter will create an opinion of an issue without consulting what a political party thinks about it and choose the political party that best fits the opinion they already have, or the voter will study the opinions of the different parties and decide which party he or she agrees with the most.[12][13][14]

A voter’s understanding of parties’ principles is strengthened and developed over time as a person gains experience with more political events.[15] In order for an issue to create the foundation for party choice, a voter must first be concerned about a particular issue and have some knowledge about that issue.[16]

A person must have formed some type of solid opinion about the issue. Also, the voter must be able to recognize that there is more than one opinion about the issue and be able to relate that to a specific political party.[17] According to Campbell, only 40 to 60 percent of the informed population even perceives party differences, and can thus partake in party voting.[18] This would suggest that it is quite common for individuals to develop opinions of issues without the aid of a political party.

History of Issue Voting

Prior to

United States presidential election of 1940. Rather, the researchers found that issues reinforced political party loyalties. Research stemming from the study concluded that voters’ motivations could be broken down into three categories: party identification, candidate orientation, and issue orientation. The American Voter in 1960 determined that party identification was the primary force, which in turn strongly influenced the other two categories. These three factors make up the Michigan School’s approach to modeling voting behavior.[20]

Some of the earliest research on issue voting done in 1960 found that voters often did not have enough information to link specific issues to individual candidates[21]. Converse, in 1964, also concluded that voters did not have a sophisticated enough understanding of issues to be able to link them to candidates.[22] In 1966, Key was one of the first people to conclude that voters are able to connect certain issues to certain candidates and cast their vote based on that information.[23] (Key) Despite the growing knowledge of the field, real evidence didn’t begin to appear until the 1970s. The American Political Science Review published a symposium that hypothesized that there was a rise in issue voting in the 1960s. An analysis of correlations with issue orientations was published by Nie and Anderson in 1974 that attempted to revise the Michigan school’s theory of the public’s political belief systems’ inherent limitations.[24] In 1979, Nie et all in The Changing American Voter attempted to explain the rise in issue voting through the fall in party voting.[25] This decline of party voting, they claimed, came about because the proportion of the electorate with no party affiliation had fallen, and because the proportion of voters who cast votes for candidates from other parties had risen.

Rise in Issue Voting

In recent years, America has seen a rise in issue voting. This can be attributed to the increased polarization in the last century between the

Independent[29]
Identifying as an independent allows voters to deal with the constraints of a polarized political party by hand picking the candidates based upon their stance on issues, rather than feeling obligated to vote along party lines that may conflict harshly with other stances. [30]

Catholics face this dilemma. Most Catholics support the

Congress Catholic voters might feel uncomfortable about how a certain presidential candidate views one issue.[31][32]

Members of

Gay rights, a stance which aligns more closely with Republican views.[33]

Issue voting by registering as an independent allows voters to have more freedom in the candidates they chose, and the increase in issue voting has been apparent in the increase of independents in America. Identifying as an independent allows voters to deal with the constraints of an extreme political party by hand picking candidates based upon their stance on issues, rather than feeling obligated to vote along party lines that may conflict harshly with other stances.[34]

Complications Regarding Issue Voting

Many complications can arise when voters decide to employ issue voting. One is that issues sometimes do not provide clear dichotomous positions on the issue.

GNP should be spent on education [39]
.

A second complexity is that sometimes problems do not line up on a linear bases, where a person can objectively choose what is closer to their opinion like the education spending example.

Containment strategy. [43][44][45]
None of these answers are mutually exclusive or can be linearly plotted. The voter would just instead have to chose the candidate with the closest opinion of the mix of the possible solutions.

A third problem is if there are multiple issues that are equally salient to the voter.

Afghanistan War and Iraq War
. Many people viewed these issues equally salient, and had a hard time picking one issue to vote on. These three complexities in issue voting have provided problems in using this tactic in choosing candidates.

Models of Issue Voting

While scholars employ many models to study issue voting, there are the three primary models used in statistical studies of issue voting. These models are not in tension with one another, and are used to answer different questions that are deemed important in the field of issue voting.

Linear Model of Issue Voting

The Linear Position Model operates on the basis that the greater the voters consistency with the the position of the party on the issue, the greater the chance of the voter voting for the party.[49][50] A graph is used where the Y-axis is the proportion voting for the party and the X-axis is the consistency of the issue position.[51][52] A simple equation is used where there are variables that represent the minimal amount of people voting for the party and another that ensures there is a positive gradient for the slope of the equation. The variables “a” represents the minimal amount of people voting for the party, while “b” ensures that there is a positive gradient.[53][54] This model aids to predict how strongly issue voting will affect a voter in an election.

The spatial model is used to determine the perceptions and decisions of voters when using issue voting strategies in elections.[55] The spatial model consists of three premises. The first is that a person can be represented in relation to other voters by placing them on a hypothetical spatial field that represents that voters absolute set of policies.[56][57] The second idea is that a candidate’s policy position can be placed on the same spatial field.[58] The final is that a voter votes for the candidate whose political stances are closest to their own.[59][60]This model looks to predict how voters that employ issue voting methods while vote based on their opinions on multiple issues. Other models that follow the idea of “closeness” are called proximity models.[61]

The salience model is important to issue voting because it utilizes data on the election agenda to total election outcome.[62][63] The theory is that the two parties in the United States are associated with certain goals or views on an issue, and the voter’s decision in selecting a candidate depends on the actual salience of the issue.[64][65] A simple view of this model can be summarized in the equation:

Vote=a(Saliency of the party's issues)+b(Saliency of the party's issues)

where "a"=Party 1, and "b"=Party 2

The more important the issue becomes, the more the voter would favor a particular candidate or party on the issue.[66][67]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Denver, 19
  2. ^ Nicholson, 11
  3. ^ Denver, 20
  4. ^ Denver, 21
  5. ^ Campbell, 98
  6. ^ Denver, 21
  7. ^ Nicholson, 132
  8. ^ Denver, 20
  9. ^ Highton, 455-458
  10. ^ Enelow, 217-219
  11. ^ Denver, 20
  12. ^ Denver, 21
  13. ^ Campbell, 79, 98
  14. ^ Carmines, 78
  15. ^ Denver,21-23
  16. ^ Moore, 245
  17. ^ Moore, 246
  18. ^ Campbell, 104
  19. ^ Borre, 1, 2, 22
  20. ^ Donsbach, "Issue Voting"
  21. ^ Campbell, 109-102
  22. ^ Converse, 78-91
  23. ^ Nicholson, 11
  24. ^ Nie (1974) 541-591
  25. ^ Nie 47-73
  26. ^ McCarty et. al, 2
  27. ^ Nie, 172
  28. ^ McCarty et. al, 2
  29. ^ McCarty et. al, 2
  30. ^ Carmines and Stimson, 78-91
  31. ^ McCarty et. al, 2
  32. ^ Nie, 172
  33. ^ Frank, 25
  34. ^ Campbell, 93
  35. ^ Nie, 158
  36. ^ Kessel, 460
  37. ^ Nie, 158
  38. ^ Kessel, 461
  39. ^ Carmines and Stimson, 78-91
  40. ^ Nie, 158
  41. ^ Carmines and Stimson, 78-91
  42. ^ Schweizer, 213
  43. ^ Schweizer, 213
  44. ^ Kirkendall
  45. ^ Bisnow, 24
  46. ^ Nie, 158
  47. ^ Nie, 158
  48. ^ Carmines and Stimson, 78-91
  49. ^ Borre, 19
  50. ^ Meier and Campbell, 26-43
  51. ^ Borre, 19
  52. ^ Meier and Campbell, 26-43
  53. ^ Borre, 20
  54. ^ Davis et. al, 426-429
  55. ^ Cho, 275
  56. ^ Rabinowitz, 93
  57. ^ McCullough,199-22
  58. ^ Rabinowitz, 93-94
  59. ^ Rabinowitz, 94
  60. ^ McCullough,199-22
  61. ^ Rabinowitz, 93, 96
  62. ^ Borre, 6
  63. ^ Niemi,1212
  64. ^ Borre, 6
  65. ^ Campbell, 93
  66. ^ Borre, 6
  67. ^ Davis et. al, 426

References

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:R.a.dodson/sandbox&oldid=1106980739"