Alford(1962).a Suggested Index of the Association of Social Class and Voting

7/27/2019 Alford(1962).a Suggested Index of the Association of Social Class and Voting

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/alford1962a-suggested-index-of-the-association-of-social-class-and-voting 1/10

American Association for Public Opinion Research

A Suggested Index of the Association of Social Class and VotingAuthor(s): Robert R. AlfordSource: The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Autumn, 1962), pp. 417-425Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Public Opinion Research

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2747230Accessed: 09/11/2010 11:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapor.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Association for Public Opinion Research and Oxford University Press are collaborating with JSTOR

to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Public Opinion Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapor

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2747230?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2747230?origin=JSTOR-pdf


http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup



LIVING RESEARCH

Living Research is a section of the Quarterly reserved for brief reports ofresearch, discussions of unsolved problems, presentations of neat methodologi-cal tricks, and other items that arise out of the daily work of researchers. Itprovides an opportunity for discussion in print of questions and results thatmay not seem to warrant a full-blown article. Researchers will find in this

section a place to exhibit data which are not adequate to substantiate im-

portant generalizations but seem promising in their implications or suggestlines of further theoretical exploration. Succinct case histories are welcomed,as well as hypotheses and insights that may be useful to other students ofpublic opinion. Notes published here are not intended to rank below the regu-lar articles in quality or significance, but are distinguished by their shiorter

length, greater informality, and more tentative nature.

A SUGGESTED INDEX OF

THE ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL CLASS

AND VOTING

BY ROBERT R. ALFORD*

In order to construct an index of the association of social class and

voting behavior in two-party parliamentary systems, a suitable measure

of social class must of course be found, and voting patterns must be

classified. An appropriate measure of social class in modernized societies

depends entirely on the theoretical purposes and assumptions of a

particular research problem. No single social characteristic of indi-

viduals can adequately measure their economic life chances, their

community prestige, or their power over other individuals. In addition

to this general difficulty, social changes now most marked in Westerr

societies have created severe problems for the analysis of the influence

of social class upon political behavior. The decreasing size of a visible

working class and its apparently decreasing organizational solidarity

deprive single indexes of social class of much significance. Neither

subjective class identification nor a composite measure of objective

class position (a measure, for example, combining education, income,

and occupation) is of great help, because they hide the very complica-

tions which should be analyzed-the discrepancies between these meas-

ures, and the different kinds of attitude and behavior which thediscrepancies produce. By trying to establish the "best" measure of

social class, researchers may reify the concept, even if they are conscious

of its complexities. When they find that such a composite measure

* The author is Assistant Professor of Sociology, and Associate Director of theSurvey Research Laboratory, at the University of Wisconsin.



418 PUBLIC OPINIONQUARTERLY

does not predict behavior very well, they may conclude too readily

that social class is no longer of much importance.1

Where the stratification order is not the principal object of study(the dependent variable), occupation can probably be used as a con-

venient way of measuring objective social class position. For a compara-

tive study of voting behavior, occupation is probably the best single

indicator.2 But the effect of other status characteristics should be exam-

ined as well, not to show the deficiencies of occupation as an index of

class position but to clarify the complex ways in which people in

roughly similar social positions may differ politically. If the changing

importance of status or class position for political behavior is of con-

cern, then comparing groups defined in a roughly similar way at a

number of points in time should reveal any tendency to come together

politically. If the political meaning of being in a "middle class" or

a "working class" occupation has shifted or differs from country to

country, it can be discovered by such research.3

The best empirical measure of class probably will be different if the

problem is to locate individuals within a given stratification systemthan if the main concern is to locate strata characterized by a number

of predominant attributes. Much discussion of the methodologicalproblems of defining classes assumes that the main problem is that of

1 A recent stuidy of class and party in a Norwegian village found that occupationaldifferences remained the chief basis of stratification and political cleavage even

though substantial differences of neither income nor prestige were present (George K.

Park and Lee Soltow, "Politics and Social Structure in a Norwegian Village," Ameri-

can Journal of Sociology, Vol. 67, 1961, pp. 152-165). This suggests that, under some

conditions, using occupation as an index of stratification may lead to somewhat

different relationships than if income or prestige were used, and possibly may givea more static picture (which need not mean a more distorted one). By comparison,

a study of political behavior in some future United States election might find thatif income were used as the index of stratification, no relation would be found be-tween it and political behavior. Such a result would show that this particularcriterion of stratification was no longer relevant for attitudes and behavior, not thatstratification itself did not exist or have consequences. In a period of social change,the validity of indexes of major structural phenomena such as stratification may needto be reconsidered over a period of time.

2 The authors of The American Voter note that, among the objective indicators ofclass, "occupation tends to predict political attitudes and behavior most efficiently"(A. Campbell, P. E. Converse, W. E. Miller, and D. Stokes, The American Voter,New York, Wiley, 1960, p. 344). See also, A. H. Birch, Small Town Politics, London,

Oxford University Press, 1959, pp. 104-106, for a brief discussion of the problems ofclassifying occupations into "classes."

3 For discussions of changes in the class structure of the United States, see KurtMayer, "Recent Changes in the Class Structure of the United States," in Transactionsof the Third World Congress of Sociology, 1956, pp. 66-8o, and Ely Chinoy, "SocialMobility Trends in the United States," American Sociological Review, Vol. 20, 1955,pp. 18o-186. Similar patterns of change have been foreseen for most of the two-partyparliamnentary nations, which are among the wealthier nations in the world.



LIVING RESEARCH 419

placing individuals.4 If the purpose is to determine the location and

attributes of strata, then the intercorrelation of various attributes of

status becomes a principal methodological line of attack upon the

problem of identifying classes.5

The implication of this argument for the construction of an index

of the association of social class and voting is that a number of single

empirical indexes can probably be used which more or less efficiently

indicate the existence of social strata with certain attributes (income,

education, occupation, prestige, style of life, historical continuity, etc.).

Whether survey data on income, education, subjective class identifica-

tion, or occupation are adequate, and which item is the best such

indicator is an empirical question, but several studies seem to showthat the best predictor of other such attributes (both of individuals

and of strata) is occupation. A comparison of nineteen different

indexes of status has been made, using the method of factor analysis,

and the variable most closely related to the first factor extracted was

occupation. Although this conclusion was based only on United States

data, it may hold for a number of Western societies.6

Such a single index has obvious shortcomings, because of the proba-

ble low level of consistency of various attributes of status (in the

United States at least), but is particularly suitable for comparative

research. The differences among countries, cities, or regions in the level

of what has been called "status [or class] crystallization" constitute an

important problem, but such differences do not preclude the use of a

single measure of class position.7 First, as already mentioned, occupa-

tion is probably the best single predictor of other class characteristics

(and this may well be true in other countries as well as in the United

4 Leonard Reissman's excellent analysis of Class in American Society (Glencoe, Ill.,

Free Press, 1959) is a case in point. He suggests that "four kinds of criteria have beenused to identify social classes: 1) How the person lives, 2) What others think of him,

3) What he thinks of himself, and 4) What he does." All these criteria assume that

the location of individuals is the key problem, not the location of strata.5 See Werner Landecker, "Class Boundaries," American Sociological Review, Vol.

25, 1960, pp. 868-877, for one of the first empirical attempts to delineate strata byutilizing survey data.

6 Joseph A. Kahl and James A. Davis, "A Comparison of Indices of Socio-economic

Status," American Sociological Review, Vol. 20, 1955, pp. 317-325.

7 No comparative research has been done using the concept of status or class crystal-

lization, although it would certainly be possible. Existing studies have focused upon

single cities or national samples without regard for regional or other area variations,and the failure to find more differences in behavior among persons with consistentand discrepant statuses may be due to the lack of comparative focus, not to the lackof importance of this as an independent variable. See Gerhard E. Lenski, "Status-

crystallization: A Non-vertical Dimension of Social Status," American Sociological

Review, Vol. 19, 1954, pp. 405-413, and Irwin W. Goffman, "Status Consistency and

Preference for Change in Power Distribution, American Sociological Review, Vol. 22,

1957, pp. 275-281.



420 PUBLIC OPINIONQUARTERLY

States). Second, the very imperfection of occupation as an index is an

integral part of stratification in this type of society and political system.

The prosperity, high level of social mobility, and relative wealth of thecountries with two-party parliamentary systems imply that a relatively

high proportion of their populations is moving upward or downward,

is in contact with other social classes or persons from other social

origins, and has "contradictory" class attributes and experiences.

For the purposes of constructing an index of the association of social

class and voting, an additional manual-nonmanual distinction has some

theoretical justification. The move acrossthe manual-nonmanual "line"

seems to have a similar meaning in most Western societies. The shift

from a blue-collar to a white-collar job has more significance-per-

sonally and socially-than a shift within each category, although the

relative prestige and life chances of various occupations differ considera-

bly within either broad category.8But, more important, the remaining

contrasts between middle class and working class in styles of life, educa-

tion, and values probably justify calling the manual-nonmanual divi-

sion a "class" distinction which would be blurred if the constant

empirical focus were upon political differences between professionals

and white-collar workers, or skilled and unskilled laborers. Such differ-

ences are important, however, and the focus on class neglects many

important differences within the middle-class and the working-class

electorates.9

This usage of the term "class" s similar in one respect to Max Weber's

usage, which distinguishes a class from a "community" or self-conscious

status group. "Classes"merely represented possible and frequent bases

for communal action to Weber, who specified that a class exists when

a "number of people have in common a specific causal component oftheir life-chances and this component is represented exclusively by

economic interests in the possession of goods and opportunities for

8 This generalization is probably most questionable for shifts from skilled worker

to owner of a very small business. Also, the problem of how to classify farmingoccupations or farm-nonfarm occupational shifts in terms of social mobility has notbeen satisfactorily solved. Since agrarian politics is usually distinctive in most coun-

tries, for purposes of an empirical index probably those social strata most charac-

teristic of industrial societies-persons in manual and nonmanual occupations-can

be examined without regard for the farming population.9 The further decision to dichotomize the various occupational groups into manual

and nonmanual can also be justified on practical grounds, particularly if comparativesecondary analysis of existing surveys is contemplated. Specific occupational cate-gories are classified differently in various surveys, and the manual-nonmanualdistinction is the most unambiguous one for comparative purposes. Also, the dataare much more easily handled when only two social strata are compared, instead ofthe eight or ten occupations usually available in a survey.



LIVING RESEARCH 421

income, and is represented under the conditions of the commodity or

labor market."10

In the sense that the "specific causal component" of life chances is

probably more disadvantageous for skilled workers than for clerks and

small businessmen, the manual-nonmanual distinction suggested as the

measure of class is a reasonable one. But, by the same token, the limita-

tions of using the manual-nonmanual occupational division are clear.

The distinction is too general, because sales clerks are not in the same

"class situation," in Weber's sense, as professionals or executives of

large businesses, nor are the latter in the same situation.

The use of the term "class" here does not imply consciousness of

membership in a social class. Whether or not manual or nonmanualworkers are conscious of a collective identity, and whether they associ-

ate this collective identity with a political party representing a collective

interest, are of course important empirical questions but ones which

should be kept separate from that of the degree of political divergence

of objectively defined occupational strata.

We may now mention briefly the problem of classifying voting

patterns. Since voting as such can be analyzed at any political level,

the index of class voting to be suggested can be applied to communities,

regions, or nations (or to any social group within these areas). Since

the parties in the kinds of class and political systems referred to here

usually represent "Left" and "Right" issues on a number of dimensions

(using the terms to divide parties in their stands on welfare, taxation,

regulation of business and trade unions, and other similar issues), for

purposes of empirical comparison parties can usually be divided in

this way.

Where two major parties are the main contenders for power, it is

assumed that dividing the vote in that way fairly represents the funda-mental political division in the electorate. Since minor parties exist

in most "two party" systems, some decision must be made concerning

the character of their appeals, parliamentary alignments with a major

party, and legislative policies, in order to classify them as part of a

Right or Left political alliance. For purposes of an empirical index,

such a decision might vary from country to country, and from election

to election.

AN INDEX OF CLASS VOTING

The extent to which manual and nonmanual strata divide in their

support for political parties can be summarized in a numerical index

of class voting. As with an index of class itself, any such measure has

10Max Weber, Essays in Sociology, edited by H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, New

York, Oxford University Press, 1946, p. 181.



422 PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY

inherent limitations as well as advantages, depending on the prob-

lem of concern.

The suggested index of class voting is computed very simply asfollows: subtract the percentage of persons in nonmanual occupations

voting for "Left" parties from the percentage of persons in manual

occupations voting for "Left" parties.l The hypothetical figures given

in the accompanying example indicate that the statistic computed as

shown has not changed in value during the three elections from 1948

to 1956. Therefore, according to this index, class voting has not changed

in the period 1948 to 1956, despite a move away from the Left party

in both social strata.12

Per Cent Voting Left 1948 1952 1956

Manual occupations 70 60 50

Nonmanual occupations 50 40 30

Difference +20 +20 +20

Use of this index assumes that it is the gap between the votingpatterns of manual and nonmanual occupations that is vital for assess-

ing class voting, not the over-all level of Right or Left voting. Theproblem of how to interpret a shift to the Right or the Left is not

basically that of determining the choice of an index of class voting,

since the problem of interpretation would remain regardless of which

index is chosen. This particular index embodies the assumption that

the deviation of either manual or nonmanual stratum from a 50-50split

11The logic behind the use of such an index is that of Donald J. Bogue in his

computation of a "coefficient of dissimilarity," measuring the "total amount of

dissimilarity between any two percentage distributions in which the two sets of per-

centages are distributed by the same classes and refer to the same units" (see Donald

J. Bogue, The Structure of the Metropolitan Community, University of Michigan,

Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies, 1950, p. 72). Here, an index of

class voting is suggested only for dichotomies, but nothing in the nature of the index

prevents it from being used for more numerous categories. Another use of the same

index is presented in 0. D. Duncan and Beverly Duncan, "Residential Distribution

and Occupational Stratification," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 6o, 1955,

PP. 493-503-12Campbell et al., op.cit., utilizing survey data for an analysis of American voting

behavior, compute an index of the association of social class and vote and call it

"status-polarization." The concept of "status-polarization" used in The American

Voter is a social-psychological one, in line with the theoretical focus of the Michiganvoting studies upon the factors affecting individual voting decisions. Status-polariza-

tion, in their definition, refers to the extent of "identification" of individuals with

a class or status group. Occupation, religion, and education are treated as "external"characteristics of individuals which may or may not indicate an identification with a

social group. This theoretical orientation produces a concern with what the study

calls "short-term fluctuations" of the importance of status or class factors in votingbehavior.



LIVING RESEARCH 423

for one of the major parties is the important fact relevant to an assess-

ment of class voting. Adding up the deviation (with regard to the sign)

produces this index. Although the method of computation just given

does not make this clear, a reinterpretation of the above example will.

For the 1952 figure, for example, the manual stratum split 60-40 for

the Left and Right parties, respectively, i.e., lo per cent more in their

expected (Left) direction than a 50-50 split. The nonmanual stratum

split 40-60 in the opposite direction, i.e., lo per cent more in their

expected (Right) direction than a 50-50 split. Adding these two lo per

cent deviations from a 50-50 split in each stratum, we get an index

figure of 20, which is exactly the same as the simpler computation given.

But what if the voting figures upon which the index was based wereas follows?

Per cent voting left:Manual 20Nonmanual 0

Difference +20

Clearly this is a radically different situation from the one above. The

political significance of class has changed, as has the whole political

system, and that is just the point. Here we have the virtual destruction

of support for one major party, and complete unanimity in one stratum.

The index is meaningless for such a situation, even though it shows

an unchanged figure of +20. The conditions affecting the social bases

of the parties have changed to such an extent that any simple statistic

such as this lacks relevance to an understanding of what has happened.

But, assuming for the moment that no such catastrophic change has

occurred, it is still difficult to interpret the change. The lack of any

Leftvoting among nonmanuals may mean that they are extremelyclass-conscious, and are voting Right for pure class reasons. On the

other hand, the 20 per cent of manual workers voting Left may mean

that the rest have taken on middle-class aspirations and are expressing

them politically by voting Right. A total decline in the significance

of social class as a determinant of voting need not be implied even by

such outlandish figures as these. One stratum may be extremely

class-conscious and voting for a party representing its felt interests;

another stratum may be voting for the same party for completely

nonclass reasons.Any empirical index, regardless of its particular construction, applies

only to a given set of social and political conditions. But, given such

conditions, why compute the index in this particular way? To answer

this question, we must bring in further assumptions concerning the

character of this type of political system.



424 PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY

The index reflects the assumption that both major parties respond

to issues salient to the voters and attempt to gain as much support as

possible; neither party tries to isolate its social base from political

influence. Parties change with the changing importance of issues and

are susceptible to influence from social currents and conflicts within

the electorate. Clearly, this is true only of certain societies and in cer-

tain historical periods. Computing the index as a simple percentage

difference between the Left support of the two social strata assumes

that it is easy to change parties in these political systems, and that it is

no harder for the average Left vote of either stratum to go from 40 per

cent to 50 per cent than from 50 per cent to 6o per cent. This point

deserves some elaboration, since it reflects an important assumptionrelative to the problem of change in the level of class voting.

The index suggested assumes that major social strata tend to be

affected similarly by political and social currents to the Right and to

the Left, that, in other words, a high level of consensus exists. No social

group is impervious to national social trends. Evidence to this effect

has been found in at least two United States studies. An early study of

voter registration in Santa Clara County, California, found that a trend

toward Democratic registration occurred among all occupational

groups, not just those presumably benefiting most from the New Deal.13

More recent studies of voting change have shown the reverse shift to

have occurred in the 1948 to 1956 period, when all occupational

groups moved in a Republican direction.14

If this is the way that political shifts have occurred in this type of

political system, then only a movement in both strata toward 50 per

cent for each party would be a true decline of the importance of social

class as a systematic factor differentiating the support of the parties.

This would be a move away from the normal predispositions in bothstrata. Actually, as already pointed out, changes in other directions

could occur. The Left vote could decline steadily in both strata, past

the 50 per cent mark. This might mean that both strata were becoming

middle-class in their values, but that the Left party was stubbornly

maintaining its identity as the party of workers. Or, conversely, both

strata might be radicalized and move away from both traditional

parties toward revolutionary parties, if the old parties maintained

conservative appeals.

The suggested index of class voting must not be overinterpreted to

determine the importance of class issues in the programs of the parties

or the meaning of class issues to the voters. Whether a high level of

13 See D. Anderson and P. E. Davidson, Ballots and the Democratic Class Struggle,Stanford, Calif., Stanford University Press, 1943, p. 370.

14 Campbell et al., op.cit., pp. 346-347.



LIVING RESEARCH 425

class voting (as measured by this index) is related to class appeals and

a high level of class-consciousness is an important question, but no

inferences from the index can be made. It measures simply the extent

to which social strata, as defined by manual and nonmanual occupa-

tions, diverge in their support of a major political party.

Comparative research by the author using this index has shown that

the rank order of class voting in four Anglo-American countries is

Britain, Australia, the United States, and Canada (as shown in the

accompanying table).'5 This cross-national difference is independent of

CLASS VOTING IN FouR ANGLO-AMERICAN COUNTRES,

1946-1959*

LowestIndexof Highest Indexof No. of PollsCountry ClassVoting ClassVoting Based on

Great Britain 38 44 6Australia 29 39 10United States 16 28 8Canada 2 16 9

* For Great Britain, the Labor Party was used, for Australia, theAustralianLabor Party, for the United States, the Democratic Party,for Canada, the CCF and Liberal Parties. Where two parties were

classifiedas "Left," heirvotes in each stratumwere combined.Theexactquestions sked n eachsurvey, he occupational ivisionsused,the datesof polls,and the numbers f cases nmanualand nonmanualoccupations re given in Alford, op.cit. The surveyswere taken atvarious imesbetween1946and1959.Questionseferredn most casesto voting ntention n a national lection,butpastvote wasusedin afew instances.Galluppolls were the main sourceof data. The re-searchwas supportedby Ford Foundationgrants for studies ofcomparativeoliticalbehavior.

regional, religious, age, and sex controls, and holds when other indexes

of class are used. This difference seems to be associated with a numberof aspects of the social and political systems of these nations. The

consistency of the results may indicate that an index such as the one

suggested does measure a relatively stable characteristic of two-party

parliamentary and open-class systems.

15See R. Alford, "Class-Votingn the Anglo-AmericanPolitical Systems," n S. M.Lipset and Stein Rokkan, editors, ComparativePolitical Systems,New York, TheFree Pressof Glencoe,forthcoming.

Documents

Alford(1962).a Suggested Index of the Association of Social Class and Voting