Lecture 1 Parties and voting (needs a re-do) Flashcards
The political paradox
Citizens who already participate in politics are politically driven and highly likely to engage in emerging forms of political participation as a means of expanding their political toolkit
The political transformation
The decline in electoral participation is being countered by an increase in non-institutional participation
The first political transformation
People who grew up at a time when voting was considered a duty and are likely to vote in elections and leave politics to their representatives. They are unlikely to participate in Van Deth’s targeted and motivational modes.
The second political transformation
There are those for whom voting is not necessarily a given. Among these, the politically active are the mainstay of the transformation and are particularly likely to take part in newer modes of participation outside the sphere of the state.
Research on populism and populist attitudes:
stresses anti-elitism and suggests that populist citizens are dissatisfied with the functioning of democracy. Accordingly, it has been argued that they are less likely to vote in elections, but not to be disengaged in general; they prefer direct forms of democracy that empower ‘the people’.
stealth democracy
most citizens have no desire to participate actively in politics. Instead, they prefer to leave it to elected representatives with whom they only have to bother every few years.
This literature suggests a profile of people likely to participate in first-order (e.g. national) elections but who barely engage in any other mode of political participation.
resources
citizens need the skills and the time to participate in politics
5 individual profiles
- Active insiders
- Expressive voters
- Expressive outsiders
- Inactive citizens
- Faithful Voters
active insiders and expressive voters
those who are interested in politics, consider themselves capable and are highly educated are more likely to belong to one of these very active classes. both satisfaction and dissatisfaction with current politics seem to fuel their involvement
Expressive outsiders
Show no clear relation to resources. However, they are negatively linked to the evaluation of political institutions, the demographic controls show that younger people are more likely to be expressive outsiders. Altogether, the archetypal expressive outsider seems to be a younger citizen who is unhappy with the current system but still has some interest in politics, which manifests itself in expressive extra-institutional activities
inactive citizens
Less politically interested citizens, those who evaluate political institutions negatively, and those who are less well-educated are more likely to belong to this group,. Across the board, this group seems to be disconnected from politics. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the older individuals are, the less likely they are to belong to this profile. It seems that older citizens are socialized more to trust authority and to vote, and thus fit our final profile, discussed below.
faithful voters
those who show up on election day, but do no more. In particular, citizens who do not feel capable of playing an active role and those who still evaluate political institutions positively are most likely to belong to this profile. Education and time constraints play no role. By and large, the archetype here seems to be a citizen who is relatively secure and (perhaps as a result of this) does not see a political role for themselves other than habitually going to the voting booth.
5 party types
- elite-centred cadre parties
- Mass parties
- Catch-all party
- Cartel party
- Buisiness firm types of party
Elite-centred cadre parties
Loosely parties led by prominent individuals, organized in closed and local caucuses which have minimal organization outside parliament
Mass parties
defining elements of this type are the extra-parliamentary mass mobilization of politically excluded social groups on the basis of well-articulated organizational structures and ideologies
Catch all parties
Catch-all parties originate from mass parties that have professionalized their party organization and downgraded their ideological profile in order to appeal to a wider electorate than their original class or religious social base
Cartel parties
fusion of the party in public office with several interest groups that form a political cartel, which is mainly oriented towards the maintenance of executive power. It is a professional organization that is largely dependent on the state for its survival and has slowly retreated from civil society reducing its function mainly to governin
Business firm types of party
Originate from the private initiative of a political entrepreneur and have, by and large, the structures of a commercial company. The image of the party leader, combined with some popular issues, is marketed by a professional organization to an ever more volatile electoral market.
electoral appeal and support (look at notes for detailed images)
party models basically suggest a negative relationship between the social heterogeneity of party support and the strength of the party-voter link. Parties can opt for a broad electoral appeal, but this will coincide with weaker party-voter links, while parties with a narrower or class distinctive social base will have supporters that are more strongly connected with ‘their’ party.
5 reasons why people vote
- rational choice perspective
- Theories of mobilization
- Sociological explanations of turnout
4.psychological models of turnout - political institutional model
Why do people vote - rational choice perspective
the decision to vote is conceptualized as the result of a personal cost-benefit calculation in which the expected benefits of voting should outweigh its costs
Why do people vote- Theories of mobilization
view voting essentially as social behavior guided by norms and sanctions, and argue that citizens go to the polls just because their family and peers do so, or even simply because they are asked to vote by campaigners
Why do people vote- Sociological explanations of turnout
have regained prominence recently with research demonstrating that turnout is subject to (parental) socialization, learning and habit-formation
Why do people vote- psychological models of turnout
stress the role of attitudes and psychological predispositions such as political interest, partisanship, and political efficacy in explaining voter turnout
Why do people vote-the political institutional model
sees the decision to turn out as a by-product of the political and institutional context in which citizens live
Poltical paricipation
- activities are located wihtin the sphere of the state ( voting, party volunteering, contacting politicians)
- Acts that are located outside this sphere but stil targeting the politcal arena or a common cause (sigining petitions, joining demostartions) and..
- Activities located outside the sphere of the state and not targeting the collective level, while still motivated by politicial intentions ( political consumerism, online commenting)
Four participation profiles (book):
- People who grew at a time when voting was considered a duty, are likely to vote in elections and leave politics to their representatives, unlikely to participate in targeted and motivational modes of participation
high system trust, support democracy\ - People for whom voting is not necessarily a given. Among these, the politically active are the mainstay of the transformation and are particularly likely to take part in newer modes of participation outside the sphere of the state
- Populism profile: people with anti-elitist attitudes and dissatisfaction with the functioning of democracy are less likely to vote in elections, but are not completely disengaged, they prefer direct forms of participation and expression that circumvent political and media elites, such as reacting and commenting on political issues on social media (targeted and motivational modes of political participation)
- Stealth democracy: most citizens have no desire to participate actively in politics. Instead prefer to leave politics to elected representatives with whom they only have to bother every few years, making them likely to participate in first-order (e.g. national) elections but barely engage in any other mode of political participation
no interest or any trust in the system, just voting because others do
Core of model
: people are mostly driven by the opportunity (resources) and the will (motivation) to vote
Motivation
evaluation of political system (trust), political interest, internal efficacy
Resources:
education, time (to spare from work and care)
- Political socialization
process by which individuals learn/internalize a political lens framing their perceptions of power structures and how the world around them is (and should be ) organized. Those perceptions shape and define individuals’ definitions of who they are and how they should behave in the political and economic institutions in which they live. Political socialization also encompasses the way in which people are acquire values and opinions that shape their political stance and ideology
Family
Parents may not ‘’talk politics’’ with their young children directly, but lifestyle, activities (class), remarks made around the dinner table or while helping with homework have an impact.
Parents influence development of children’s political orientations in (at least) two ways:
1. Political awareness: explicit political characteristics of family life foster positive civic orientations that stimulate interest and engagement in politics and the presence of role models may lead to imitation and adoption of behaviors and attitudes
2. Socio-economic status: parental status effect; higher education, impacts on political interest and knowledge, class-specific political orientations, civic attitudes and involvement
cohort
verschillende mensen in verschillende fases worden door verschillende omstandigheden geraakt
Life cycle (age)
effect in political behavior: relationship between age and political behavior is curvilinear: people are most active in middle life and least active in the earliest and latest stages of the life cycle (but does not hold for all types of political activity)
Political development and participation over the life course: age, family formation, career/profession, retirement all matters
Age gap in political participation
Across all established democracies lower turnout of youngest eligible voters, followed by steep rise in young adulthood, followed by gradual increases until voters reach their sixties, decline after. Not uniform rise in adulthood, slight fall in political participation when young voters leave parental home (family-formation effect).
Four broad explanations for age effects:
- Interest and preference formation
- Value fluidity/solidity
- Internalization of social norms
- Changes in social network and peer group
Interest and preference formation
younger citizens have less fixed or unclear sense of their own current and future political interests. When you are in school, university, military service, apprenticeship living at home you less experience tax-effects and costs of public services or other regulations. Over time, with career development these interests solidify.
Value formation fluidity
younger people may have less settled opinion and value-structures, and also be less informed about how political parties differ on salient issues and values
Gradual internalization of societal norms and maturation of adult roles
with responsibilities of adulthood come special expectations to start a family, have a (more) permanent residence, keep up with the news and participate in civic life of the community
Aging leads to changes in social networks and peer groups.
Peer pressure within family and school in young adulthood may differ from pressures for civic engagement in professional environment or from young peers that also lack electoral experiences. Over their lifecycle, people may have high turnout contexts to ow turnout contexts. As citizens near the end of their lives, fragility, illness and peer mortality reduce the size of their network and reduce political involvement
Gender gap?
- Recent research, however, suggests that the gender gap in turnout has gradually disappeared
- Smets and van Ham show that gender is not always a statistically significant predictor of turnout
- Effects are usually low (and statistically insignificant) and in any countries where gender has a significant impact it is usually women that turn out higher rates, not men
