How do voters make decisions???

Campaigns in Voting Theories

Voters Role of CampaignsIgnorant To manipulate

Campaigns in Voting Theories

Voters Role of CampaignsIgnorant To manipulate

Bounded rationality

Campaigns in Voting Theories

Voters Role of CampaignsIgnorant To manipulate

Bounded rationality To provide simple information to help people use shortcuts

Campaigns in Voting Theories

Voters Role of CampaignsIgnorant To manipulate

Bounded rationality To provide simple information to help people use shortcuts

Highly socialized

Campaigns in Voting Theories

Voters Role of CampaignsIgnorant To manipulate

Bounded rationality To provide simple information to help people use shortcuts

Highly socialized Meaningless?

Funnel of Causality

Long term, stable partisan and policy predispositions

Current policy preferences and perceptions of current conditions

Retrospective evaluations of the president concerning results

Impressions of the candidates’ personal qualities

Prospective evaluations of the candidates and parties

Vote choice

Sociological factors

Voting in 2008 by race

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

AfricanAmerican

White Other Hispanic

Obama

McCain

Percent of blacks who voted Democratic minus

percent of whites who voted Democratic

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1952 1960 1968 1976 1984 1992 2000 2008

Gender

• In 1992:– Male: 1% more D than R– Female: 16% more D than R

• In 2004:– Male: 1% more D than R– Female: 11% more D than R

– Gender Gap in voting in 2008: 11%

Gender gap

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Obama McCain

White female White male

Religion

• In 1992:– Committed mainline Protestant: 17% more R than D– Nominal mainline Protestant 10% more R– Committed evangelical Protestant 3% more R– Nominal evangelical Protestant 20% more D– Committed Catholic 31% more D– Nominal Catholic 28% more D– Jewish 64% more D– Non-religious 18% more D

Religious voting

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Jewish Catholic Protestant None

Obama

McCain

Vote choice by degree of religious commitment (white protestants)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Low/medium High Very high

Obama McCain

Party identification

• A socialized, psychological attachment to a political party

• An information processing shortcut

• An information screen

• A predictor of vote choice

Party ID as predictor of vote choice for president

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1952 1960 1968 1976 1984 1992 2000

Strong Dems Strong Reps

Strong partisans

• More likely to vote, be informed, and participate

Did you read a newspaper about the 2004 presidential election?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

StrongDems

WeakDems

IndleanDem

PureInd

IndleanReep

WeakReps

StrongReps

Did you vote in the 2004 presidential election?

0102030405060708090

100

StrongDems

WeakDems

IndleanDem

PureInd

IndleanReep

WeakReps

StrongReps

Strong partisans

• More likely to vote, be informed, and participate

Why?

• Better information processing

• Got somebody to root for

So how should a campaign activate strong partisans?

What do we know about independents?

Independents

• There are fewer of them than partisans

Partisanship

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000

Democrats Republicans Independents

Independents

• There are fewer of them than partisans

• Many who say they are “independent” actually lean

• Leaners are fairly reliable party voters

• Some other “independents” are clueless

• Only about 10% of voters are true political independents

Of the Independents…

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000

Party leaners True independent No preference Don't know

Percent of party identifiers voting for their party’s presidential candidate (Dems)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1952 1960 1968 1976 1984 1992 2000

Strong Dems Weak Dems Ind lean Dem

Percent of party identifiers voting for their party’s presidential candidate (Reeps)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1952 1960 1968 1976 1984 1992 2000

Ind lean Rep Weak Reps Strong Reps

Independents

• There are fewer of them than partisans

• Many who say they are “independent” actually lean

• Leaners are fairly reliable party voters

• True attitudinal independents less likely to be informed, vote, participate

• Behavioral independents / split ticketers do determine election outcomes

Behavioral independents, Dems

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1952 1960 1968 1976 1984 1992 2000

Strong Dems Weak Dems Ind lean Dem

Behavioral independents, Reps

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1952 1960 1968 1976 1984 1992 2000

Strong Reps Weak Reps Ind lean Rep

Other factors affecting vote choice

Funnel of Causality

Long term, stable partisan and policy predispositions

Current policy preferences and perceptions of current conditions

Retrospective evaluations of the president concerning results

Impressions of the candidates’ personal qualities

Prospective evaluations of the candidates and parties

Vote choice

Partisanship and approval of presidential job performance

0

20

40

60

80

100

1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

Strong Democrat Weak Democrat Ind. Leans Democrat

Independent Ind. Leans Republican Weak Republican

Strong Republican

Retrospective evaluations of George W. Bush and 2008 vote choice

0102030405060708090

100

Stronglyopposed

Slightlyopposed

Slightlysupport

Stronglysupport

Percent Voted for Obama

Who among these voters should a campaign focus its energies

on?

Who should it ignore?