Voting Behavior in Elections in the US - Research Paper Example

Voting Behavior: Elections Similar to all the elections in the United s, the elections displayed varying voting behavior from the population. As a norm social and economic factors played a major role in influencing the voting behavior in 2012. The varying behavior is influenced by the difference at which the social and economic factors affect different parts of the population. These differences display conspicuous voting behavior. For instance, there is massive difference between the highest and lowest voting statistics in people at different income level was significant. The percentage was further different between people with low and high academic levels. The data presented in the voting behavior of the 2012 election justifies the argument. Combination of the factors, level of income and education, derives the same conclusion. A person with both poor income and less educational experience are likely to stay away from the election process. This is dissimilar to the well-educated and high earning people. The Relationship between Voting and Family Income In the 2012, election family income influenced the voting trend significantly. Generally, families with a stable financial income value the need to vote. In an argument by Wayne the need to vote among people in the United States is determined by the ability of people to feel the relevance of the process (67). The author further asserts that the need to vote increases with the increase of the benefits a person gets from the government (Wayne 67). From the argument it is an accurate assertion that people have the perception that their level of income is determined by the government. The ability of the government to raise the income level raised the need to vote among citizens. The same argument is supported by Coates who is of the assumption that rich families participate more in patriotic gestures that poor families (181). The author further asserts that the trend is influenced by the value people get from the state (Coates 181). In addition, people have developed the perception that the role of the government is increase their income. A failure to provide this requirement minimizes the willingness of people to vote. Minus the independent variable of education, statistics collected in the 2012 election depicted the effect of family income in influencing the need to vote. People earning less than $30,000 voted less that people that earned more than $110,000. People earning more than $110,000 voted as a percentage rate of 91.9% against 70.5% of people earning less than $30,000 (Lecture Notes). In addition, only 8.9% of people earning $110,000 did not vote. This is compared to the 29.5% of people earning less than $30,000 (Lecture Notes). The same trend is visible in the middle level earners. Each level of income escalated with their positive perception towards the election. From the data provided, it is an accurate assumption that the income level is a significant determinant of voting behavior. The rich feel the need to take part in the practice while the poor or less wealthy do not find the need to participate in the election. Wayne is of the assumption that families with high income appreciate the state by taking part in the election (351). The author further asserts that people with low income do not have enough motivation to take part in the practice (Wayne 351). Generally, the level of income determines the level of voter turnout and voting behavior. The Relationship between Voting and Education From the data collected on the voting behavior in 2012, education displayed massive influence on the practice. Across the United States voting behavior as influenced by educational level was evident. People with high academic experience, tend to be more willing to take part in the election process. On the other hand, people with no or minimum educational experience do not have the will to take in the activity. The relationship between the level of education and voting behavior has been constant. With increasing academic level, voter turnout has increased steadily. In interpreting the trend, Wayne is of the assumption that people with high academic certificates are well educated and informative on the election process (351). The author further cites that a well learned person understand the importance of taking part in the election process. Education increases their ability to develop a patriotic mentality. On the other hand, people with no education lack the information on the importance of taking part in the process. Burden and Stewart are of the assumption that illiteracy minimizes the ability of a person to be educated on the process and importance of elections (196). In addition, their mentality is influenced by the social factors. In analyzing the data provided, educational level greatly influenced voting behavior in the 2012 elections. There is 20% difference between graduates and people with high school or a less diploma in their voter turnout (Lecture Notes). Graduates represented a 91.9% voter turnout. This is against 69.2% of people with only a high school diploma or less (Lecture Notes). College graduates also voted more than people with a high school diploma only, but less than graduates. The percentage of college graduates in the election is 84.2% (Lecture Notes). The same trend was visible in the data depicting non-voters. The number was the highest in people with a high school diploma or less and least in graduates. From the data provided, it is an accurate assertion that the level of education influenced the ability of a person to take part in the election process. People with a high school diploma or less are not well informed on the importance of taking part in the process. In addition, they may find in difficult to comprehend the entire process (Burden & Stewart 200). In addition, education eradicates the negative mentality and perception towards the state and government. Consequently, well educated people take part in the election process more often that people with no or less educational experience. The relationship between voting, education and family income A combination of the two factors, education and family income, depicts the extent at which they affect voting behavior. In addition, the combination of the factors links their differences and similarities in influencing voting behavior. However, the two variable share the fact that they influence voting behavior based on their level. For instance, lack of both education and stable income negatively affects the voter turnout. In an argument by Coates combining the economic factor and level of education shows the extent of their importance in the election process (179). Specifically, a person with a poor education experience and low income is more likely not to vote when compared with a graduate with a high income. The trend is influenced by that the voter perception is influenced by two factors. Firstly, low income increases their negativity towards the state. Additionally, lack of education minimizes their ability to understand the importance of the election process. Similarly, a wealthy person who is well educated has the motivation to take part in the election process. Moreover, they are well informed on the importance and relevance of taking part in the election process. Data collected from the voting behavior in 2012 showed the extent of the disparity. For people with a high school diploma or less with an income above $110,000, their voter turnout was 77.6%. This is in comparison to the 63.4% for people with the same education level but an income of less than $30,000 (Lecture Notes). The same trend is visible for graduates. With a high income of above $110,000, the percentage turnout was at 94.2%. For people with less than $30,000 as income the percentage turnout was 89.4% (Lecture Notes). It is also clear that the total number of voters who are well educated and have a high income is significantly higher. From the data presented, it is an accurate assertion that combining the level of education and family income increases the difference in the voter behavior. In an argument by Coates the two factors influence the perception of the voter towards the state and their understanding of the voting process (179). From the argument, it is correct that increased income and high education a voter has the total requirement to value the importance of the voting process. Consequently, lack of both factors increase the inability of a person to value and understand the value of the process. Conclusion From the information provided, it is a clear conclusion that the level education and family income significantly influences voting behavior. Independently, both low income and poor education experience minimize the voter turnout. This is caused by the lack of a mature mentality and motivation to take part in the process. The mentality and motivation increase with high income and high educational level. Combination of the factors derives the same conclusion. A person with both poor income and less educational experience are likely to stay away from the election process. This is dissimilar to the well-educated and high earning people. Works Cited Burden, Barry. & Stewart, Charles. The Measure of American Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2014. Print. Coates, David. The Oxford Companion to American Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2012. Print. Lecture Notes. Tables: Voting Behavior, the 2012 Election. 2012. Doc. Wayne, Stephen. The Road to the White House 2012. Boston: Cengage Learning. 2011. Print. Read More