Michael M. Gant

Democratic Theory, Nonvoting, and Public Policy The 1972-1988 Presidential Elections

This article explores an assumption implicit in democratic theory that appears to motivate much of the research into the causes of abstention: Voters and nonvoters differ on a variety of important politically relevant dimensions. The authors develop several hypotheses from this assumption and the prior research done in this area and test these propositions with data from the 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, and 1988 Center for Political Studies American National Election Studies. The more interesting findings are that voters and nonvoters differ in terms of their positions on some issues, but not by much, and not on all issues; voters are much more likely to form preferences based on policy concerns than are nonvoters; and voters and nonvoters do not differ in terms of whom they prefer for president. Theirfindings suggest that abstention does not result in markedly different political messages being sent to the political system than would have been sent under full participation, and does not reflect a clear potential for different political outputs from the system. Moreover, the pattern among elections is remarkably stable.

Anticandidate voting in the 1984 presidential election

Data from a national survey conducted in 1984 form the basis for a new analysis of anticandidate voting in presidential elections, i.e., voting focused more on a candidate one opposes than on a candidate one prefers. Anticandidate voting is viewed as the end product of a process whereby voters attempt to reduce discomfort that cross-pressures generate within their decision frameworks. In 1984, nearly a third of all likely voters said they were primarily motivated by a desire to voteagainst one of the two presidential candidates, a rate of anticandidate voting similar to that observed in the Johnson-Goldwater election of 1964 but well below that of the 1980 Reagan-Carter election. However, factors related to anticandidate voting in the past were not consistently linked to anticandidate voting in 1984. We conclude that the presence of Ronald Reagan exerted such a strong influence on the 1984 campaign that processes that would normally be observable, such as anticandidate voting, were overridden.

Partisan issue preferences and partisan change

This paper addresses the relationship between changes in issue preferences and changes in partisanship, and examines the possibility that different types of issues may be associated with different dimensions of partisanship. A discriminant function analysis using the 1972–74–76 CPS Panel reveals that Democrats, Independents, and Republicans are very different from one another in terms of partisan issue preferences on a New Deal and a racial issue. The association between issue preferences and changes in strength among partisans is less stable, but the Democratic identification seems to be more closely aligned with the New Deal and racial issues than the Republican identification. Leaners appear to be more partisan in their issue preferences than weak identifiers are.

The Cognitive Utility of Partisanship

rT V HE DOMINANT concept in the study of voting behavior is partisanship, especially its operationalization by the Survey Research Center/Center for Political Studies as party identification. Given its strong impact on behavior, perceptions of the political world, and other political attitudes, partisanship has been the subject of intense scrutiny. It has been empirically examined and theoretically analyzed both as a dependent variable1 and as an independent variable.2 Other research has concentrated on a thorough treatment of the problems surrounding the conceptualization and measurement of party identification.3 As originally formulated by the authors of The American Voter (Campbell, Converse, Miller and Stokes, 1960), party identification is a psychological concept, serving psychological functions. These functions would include the reinforcement of vote choices, and perceptual screening of political actors and events. But one school of research has attempted to describe and analyze the political content and functions of party identification, by focusing on the policy bases of partisanship.4 This approach is useful

Citizen uncertainty and turnout in the 1980 presidential campaign

In this paper the concept of uncertainty regarding for whom a citizen should vote is developed and is shown to be an important component of rational choice models of decision making. Uncertainty is measured using the 7-point issue scales from the 1980 Center for Political Studies survey. A nonrecursive, simultaneous-equation model of the determinants of uncertainty and turnout is developed and is estimated using a “modified” two-stage least squares technique. Among other results, we find that uncertainty is the most important determinant of whether or not citizens vote—stronger than civic duty, education, or strength of partisanship.

The Irrelevance of Abstract Conceptualization for Policy-Based Voting

One of the dominant themes of electoral and public opinion research has been the study of abstract ideologies among the mass citizenry. Controversy continues over how to measure the existence, strength, and content of ideologies. The research to date, however, does indicate that most Americans do not have abstract and overarching ideologies to help them understand and evaluate the political process. Here we pursue two specific questions. First, what do the words liberal and conservative-the two most common terms associated with ideology-mean to citizens? Second, do the ways in which people define liberal and conservative affect their ability to vote on the basis of policy concerns?