Why Do Voters Vote Against Their Party - Dissertation Example

WHY DO VOTERS VOTE AGAINST THEIR PARTY? Jordyn Eades POL 250 Dr. Cizmar November 4, Introduction The outcome of an election in any country is determined by the voting behavior of the electorate i.e. how and why voters make up their minds in regard to voting. In America, it has been established that election results are regularly characterized by dramatic changes. For example, the aftermath of victory for one party in a certain season can be a triumph for another party in the following election season. Multiple factors explain election outcomes. Party identification is an important underlying factor affecting vote choice.1 This paper discusses why voters vote against their party identification. Importance of the study The importance of this study is to determine the relationship between voting and party identification. The party identification significantly affects the outcome of an election. This was especially true in many elections that took place between 1972 and 2008 and this effect is mostly felt on the presidential vote choice.2 The effect of party ID was weaker between 1980 and 2000, but saw a dramatic rise in effect from 2004 to 2008. Ideological reputation is an emerging perception and attitude that citizens portray towards parties. This is the reason for the greater consistency in the policy views of the members of the public and their partisanship. This means the choice of leadership is motivated by partisanship which consequently implies party identification. In examining of these factors we draw the understanding of the nature of election results as well as the dynamics of the American election. Hence it is true that there is a close link of party identification to the voting choices of American citizens. Reasons why voters vote against their ideological or party identification Mark Twain stated “no party holds the privilege to dictate me how I shall vote. If loyalty to party is a form of patriotism, I am no patriot…”3 Plausible reasons why voters vote against their party identification include long term and short term factors. Split-Ticket voting [Section redacted] Voter evaluation of candidates Candidate quality also has a bearing on vote choice. For example, incumbents are evaluated based on their previous record of work hence they can or cannot benefit from the voter evaluation depending on the quality of their work.4 This is in agreement with the democratic theory which elucidate that candidates should be voted according to their past performance and the policies which they have presented. Also, the proposed policies are what determine if an upcoming leader is to be voted by the electorates. Janda et al. writing on evaluating vote choice assert that as some voters follow the democratic rule to choose leaders; others are less concerned with such issues as candidates’ attributes, policies and party identification.5 To them, the important thing is voting regardless of who assumes the office. This is a reason why voters vote against their party ideologies and identification. Social factors Factors such as racial differences and ethnic groupings may cause people to vote against their ideological and political parties. People group themselves according to their similarity in terms of economic, race and religion. However, it has been reported that different races and ethnic groups have chosen the self-identity of nonpartisanship. This comes as a result of dissatisfaction with a party or influence by the social happenings to update their beliefs concerning a party and its performance.6 Party identification has been branded as a loyalty displayed to the party meaning party in the electorates implying a connection between party and voters. Sabato and Ernst in their discussion on party identification state that American parties have been likened to business competition for a market share and so dissatisfaction results in clients’ loyalty to competitors. However, social factors have rocked the connection between parties and their supporters thereby resulting into citizens voting against their party ideologies and identification.7 Modern politics in the state of Kentucky In their attempt to explore the trends, patterns, and direction of the changes in politics and policies of Kentucky, Clinger and Hail (2013) elucidate that the politics of Kentucky have always been a source of hilarity to the Commonwealth residents.8 This is evidenced in the occasional entertaining treatment with often exciting, scandalous and sometimes dull escapades that citizens of other states have observed in the Kentucky politicians. Assertions are that Kentucky State is highly Democratic with Republicans only sparring for the party’s gubernatorial nomination; however, its pattern of election is very complicated.9 This article describes how the Kentucky politics is under serious influence of money and a reflection of its impacts gives a preview of what presidential election could be next year. It further reveals how the billionaire Koch brothers give out millions of dollars to any Republican candidate of their choice to use in campaigns. They do this with the aim of helping them beat their counterparts who belong to the Democratic Party. However, regarding the discussion in this paper it is fact that Kentucky is dominated by Democrats in recent elections most offices are won by the Republicans. This is illustrated by the victory of a “Tea Party” Republican candidate for Senate.10 The Republicans had strong victories over the Democrats in the 2015 state elections, winning four out of the five constitutional offices, including the governor’s office. Incumbent Democratic State Auditor Adam Edelen, who lost his election for a second term, was quoted as saying “the degree to which the national party is out of step with mainstream Kentuckians has created an environment where it’s extraordinary difficult for a Democrat to win statewide.”11 This indicates that Kentucky voters may choosing their vote in state elections based on dissatisfaction with the actions of the national Democratic Party. Hence these articles identify the important themes and concepts which give an overview of the topic that voters do vote against their ideological or party identification. Set up for “Data Plan” or Methodology Section Party identification strongly affects vote choice. This section of my research outlines the data methods followed during the Kentucky pol investigations. All the methods of analysis point to the reasons why Kentucky is historically considered a strongly Democratic Party-dominated state, and why an increasing number of elections in Kentucky are being won by Republicans. This section of the research also provides a review of the study hypothesis; identifies the independent and dependent variables and units of analysis; operational definition of each variable, the source or sources of data used; and the measurement of the variables. Study hypothesis For this research we will assume the republicans are winning more elections and important offices in Kentucky because the state is undergoing a partisan realignment. The data collected and the analysis conducted will aim at determining whether this statement is true or not true. From the stated hypothesis, we may argue that partisan realignment affects election outcomes and winning important offices in Kentucky, or rather there is a close relationship between winning more elections (or important offices) and partisan realignment in Kentucky. It is therefore clear from these statements that wining more elections and important offices is a dependent variable while partisan alignment is the independent variable. Units of analysis With election, there are two possible outcomes; winning or losing. Similarly, the state may decide to follow partisan realignment, non-partisan realignment or a combination of the two types of realignment. The fact that it may be hard to quantify the measurements relating to these typed of information makes it appropriate to use dummy measurements as the most appropriate units of analysis. For this analysis, we will assume a case of dummy dependent and dummy independent variables as follows: Election outcome = 1 if a win, 0 otherwise Party status = 1 if partisan realignment, 0 otherwise From the above statement, we can develop a model that can be used to explain the relationship between election outcome (win) and partisan realignment as follows: Election win = β0 + β1Partisan Realignment + β­2Non-Partisan Realignment + β3(Partisan Realignment X Non-Partisan Realignment) + µ. Bust since Non-Partisan Realignment is represented a nominal value of 0, the model will drop to Election win = β0 + β1Partisan Realignment + µ, which may be represented as Y= β0 + β1X + µ. Operational definition Since the idea is to identify the cause-and effect relationships between election win and partisan alignment, the operational definition will be based on the number of votes obtained by the winning party and the number of times the winning party has obtained support due to partisan realignment. The variables Y and X will be used to define the relationships, and also to determine whether the hypothesis as stated is true or false.12 The information collected from the population will be arranged in a table with two columns and two other additional columns for analysis as shown below. Election outcome Win Win Not a win Win Not a win 1 if win, 0 otherwise 1 1 0 1 0 Party Status Partisan Non-Partisan Non-Partisan Partisan Partisan 1 if partisan realignment, 0 otherwise 1 0 0 1 1 Note: the researcher will be required to collect information from a large information to aid in the analysis so that the defined variables to can be tested for any relationship. Sources of data The data for the various election outcomes will be generated from the Kentucky State Board of Elections,13 and also from the population data given by the US Census Bureau. Even though the data presented in these sources are quantitative, the figures may only be important in determining number of times the Republican Party has won elections. Data analysis Since all the variables in this model are qualitative and represented using dummy variables (dummy dependent and dummy independent variables) or nominal values we will apply the ANOVA tests for dummy dependent and independent variables. From the information above, our model of analysis is given as Y= β0 + β1X + µ for the non-zero variables. The Y-variable will represent the elections outcome (win) while the X-variable will represent the political affiliation (partisan alignment). Through the ANOVA tests, we will be able to determine the values for β0­ and β1 so that we can develop the statistical model to explain the cause-and-effect relationship between the variables. The analysis will also allow us to determine the correlation between the variables and also test for the level of significant for the entire model and the statistic parameters. To calculate β1­ and β0, we will use the formula given as βi = (X’X)-1(X’Y), for i = 0, 1. Where X’X = and X’Y = Note: 1. (X’X)-1 defines an inverse matrix of the elements obtained from X’X above 2. The ANOVA model is restricted to two explanatory variable, and this means that it may not be applicable for a regression model with more than two explanatory variables. Bibliography Aldrich, John H. Why Parties? : A Second Look. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2011. BBC News. “Mainstream Republicans in Tea Party Primaries Setback” US & Canada (2010). Doi: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11301034 Beam, Adam. “Republican Victories Leave Kentucky Democrats Reeling” abc News (2015). Doi: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/republican-victories-leave-kentucky-democrats-reeling-34956621 Clinger, James C. and Hail, Michael W. Kentucky Government, Politics, and Public Policy. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 2013. Eijk, van der Cees and Franklin, Mark N. Political Analysis: Elections and Voters. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Garavaglia, Susan, and Asha Sharma. "A smart guide to dummy variables: Four applications and a macro." In Proceedings of the Northeast SAS Users Group Conference. 1998. Hajnal, Zoltan and Lee, Taeku. Why Americans Don’t Join the Party: Race, Immigration, and the Failure (of Political Parties) to Engage the Electorate. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2011. Janda, Kenneth et al. The Challenge of Democracy: American Government in Global Politics, 13th Ed. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2016. Jessee, Stephen A. Ideology and Spatial Voting in American Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Kentucky State Board of Elections. Source for Popular Vote data. Kentucky State Board of Elections. Official General Election Results For the office of President and Vice President of the United States (2012), http://elect.ky.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/Election%20Results/2010-2019/2012/2012genresults.pdf Michie, Jonathan, Ed. Reader’s Guide to Social Sciences, vol. 1. London: Routledge, 2000. Mondak, Jeffery J. and Mitchell, Don-Gene, Ed. Fault Lines: Why the Republicans Lost Congress. New York: Routledge, 2008. Sabato, Larry and Ernst, Howard R. Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections. New York: Facts On File, 2007. Schlefer, Theodore. “Koch Money Fuels Personal Politics in Kentucky” CNN politics (2015). Doi: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/08/politics/campaign-spending-kentucky-governor/ Wessels, Bernhard et al. Voters on the Move or On the Run? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Read More