Democracy: Voting Behavior Models - Essay Example

Democracy: Voting Behavior Models Introduction The most crucial element in any democracy is voting. One question though that needs answering is; why do people vote the way they do? Is it because of their social structure, rational choice, dominant ideology or party identification? This can only be achieved by analyzing these voter behavior models. This essay will discourse the extent to which social structure model explains why people vote the way they do. The social structure model explains how social factors shape voting behavior. These include: Social class, age, gender, occupation, ethnicity, geographical location and level of education (Graham n.p). The social class was very important in shaping voting behavior in Britain in the 1950s and 1960s such that Pulzer considered it as “the basis of British party politics, all else is embellishment of detail” (Fairclough 50). Social class in this case is divided into middle-class (ABC1), skilled working class (C2) and semi/unskilled working class (DE). People from similar social class vote in similar way considered the “natural way” of voting (Fairclough 50). It is believed that the working class votes for labour party while middle-class votes for the conservative party. From 1974 to 2010 election data, this distinction emerges. The middle class voted for the conservative party from 1974 to 1992 in huge numbers as compared to the labour or Liberal Democratic Party (LD). The conservative lead over Labour party in 1974, 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992 consecutively were: +37, +35, +39, +36, and +32. However, in the elections that followed, the conservative party lost some support from middle-class who shifted to labour party as evidenced by results. There was no significant change for LD as support remained at 20s. Fairclough (50) attributes this to class dealignment or deviant voters since they did not vote for natural class party. De-alignment occurs when middle class votes for labour party and working class votes for the conservative party. This may be due to change in occupational structure of the workforce such as “greater social mobility, few manual workers, rising level of education, geographical mobility and influence of mass communication” (Graham). As regards geographical mobility, when middle-class workers live in residential areas inhabited by working-class, they tend to vote same way as the working class. The results also show that the unskilled working class voted for the labour party in huge numbers for all nine elections held from 1974 to 2010. This means they remained loyal to their party for the whole period that is why the conservative lead was negative throughout. However, the gap lessened in 1983 and 2010 with -8 and -9 consecutively compared to -35 for 1974, -38 for 1997 and -31 for 2001. The number who voted for conservative party and the Liberal Democratic also did not change significantly. For conservatives it ranged between 20-30 while for LD ranged between 10 and 20. As for the skilled working class, the result was mixed as sometimes the working class voted for labour party and other times for the conservatives. In 1971, equal numbers (41) voted for both parties. The only significant difference was felt in 1974, 1997 and 2001 when more working class voted for the labour party. The labour party led by a margin of 23, 23 and 20 consecutively. This trend of skilled working class voting for conservative party of the middle class can be explained as deference or de-alignment. Class dealignment in this case occurs when working class feels more middle class hence vote for conservatives (Fairclough 50). This may be a result of raining social status due to material possessions among other things. Deference on the other hand, occurs if working class voters view the conservative party as the natural party of government or the new working class may not act as the old working class. This may explain why more skilled workers voted for conservative party in 1979 and 1983. In 1974, conservatives got 26 and labour 49 but in 1979, they both got 41 meaning some workers voted for conservatives. Even those who did not vote for LD (5) did not vote for labour party. However, it is apparent that in 1997 and 2001 elections, more voters from all social classes voted for the labour party and more voted for conservative party in 2010. This may be due to reduced individual royalty to a particular party due to short-term factors. Gender and age also affect voting behavior. It is believed that women vote for conservatives while men vote for labour party leading to a “gender gap” (Graham). This is because men are more in the workforce and trade unions than women but the gender gap has narrowed over the years as more women join the workforce. For example in 2010, 38% men voted for conservatives compared to 36% women. 28% of men voted for labour compared with 31% women and 21% men for Liberal Democrats compared to 25% women. Age is also a crucial factor. From the results of 2010 elections, it is apparent that the aging population is high with those 65+ amounting to 1565 while those aged 18-24 amounted to 527. The results show that older people voted for conservative party: 18-24, 29.5%; 25-54, 34%; 55-64, 37% and 65+, 43.9%. More young people (31%) voted for labour party compared to 27% age 55-64. The percentages who voted for LD were almost the same except for older people (65+) which was 18% compared to 28% for other age cohorts. When we look at the Lab Lead, it shows older people (55-64 and 65+) voted for the conservative party with a lead of -10 and -12 consecutively. Age sometimes interacts with gender to affect voting behavior. Results show that young men aged 18-24 voted for labour party 33% compared to 29% for conservatives and 26% LD. Older men voted for conservative party. For example those aged 55+ voted 41% conservative, 29% labour and 18% LD. The same case applies for women with those 55+ voting for conservative (41%) and young women aged 18-24 voting for LD (33%). References Fairclough, P (2002). Advanced Government and Politics. Oxford: OUP. Graham, L (2014). Political Participation Part 2. Retrieved March 15, 2014 from http://www.academia.edu/5845065/political-participation-part-2. Read More