by deceased UC-Berkeley Professor of Political Science Nelson Polsby
and while I must say his first few observations are not necessarily groundbreaking some of his comments were very interesting and enough to keep me reading (like I really needed motivation. After all I am an self confessed "junkie"). Irregardless, he basically begins by looking at one of the most researched academic topics of elections: Why do people vote or not vote?
Anyway, here are just a few snippets from Professor Polsby's book
:1. Parties and candidates depend on voter turnout. And so it is important for them to know why some people show up at the polls and why some others do not.I would take some issue with this. I would say that directly knowing why some people vote and some do not is a factor in calculating what % or number of votes a politician needs to be successful, it is not their primary concern. I would argue that their primary concern is nailing down how many people WILL vote and thus derive how many votes they need to get to whatever % is required by law to win. I would say it is a factor because if you can identify why the large number of people who do not vote every year choose to do so and find a way to motivate them a politician, operative, or party could drastically swing turnout models in their favor.
2. [An]...explanation for what really divides Americans who vote from those who don't is registration: people registered to vote tend to vote roughly at Western European rates of participation. But people not registered cannot vote legally, and so it is important to know that registration to vote is more difficult in most parts of the United States than in the democracies with which the United States is compared. In America permanent registration does not come automatically as an attribute of citizenship, as it does in most countries. Instead, prospective voters are required to take positive steps to sign up on a voting roll maintained in the locality where they wish to vote. Normally, you vote where you live, and because Americans change where they live quite a lot---about 1/3 of Americans change their local address every two years---a lot of reregistering is required.This, along with the fact that voting in the United States is normally on a working weekday (as Professor Polsby also mentions later) seems to be one of the key factors in the reasons Americans don't participate in more robust numbers. One essential obstacle to reform in this area is that it would likely require a constitutional amendment or a state adoption en masse, but in several states there have been movements to ease requirements for election participation. I would argue that the lack of response on this issue by politicians can be attributed to mainly two things: First, a movement to register mass amounts of voters could radically change the make up of the electorate and thus alter the status quo of how elections are decided in this country. Second, the politicians have no incentive to change anything. There is no movement by the voting populous to alter the way elections are held and politicians are only held to account by the people who vote. Non-registered voters have no recourse to tear down the roadblocks that are placed in their way with regard to voting.
3. ...where do people get their party affiliations? There seems to be no simple answer. Every individual is born into a social context and consequently inherits a social identity that may contain a political component. People are Democrats or Republicans, in part, because their families and the other people with whom they interact are Democrats or Republicans. Most individuals come into close contact predominantly with affiliates of only one party. And just as people tend to share characteristics with their friends and families, such as income and educational level, religious affiliation, and area of residence, they also tend to share party loyalties with them.I essentially agree with everything in this passage. First it is important to point out (as Polsby does in the next paragraph) that this doesn't apply to all voters, but it certainly does to most voters. Even the self-described "independents" largely have some partisan leanings and this informs some of their votes and the way they go about elections. Plainly, I would argue that if there are any true independents they are such a minute category as to be a statistical anomaly. This would explain why certain areas can largely be pegged demographically as "Republican" or "Democrat".
I am continuing to read Polsby's book and fully intend to continue to comment or just post excerpts that I find interesting, but time doesn't always permit. I have also been rereading "On Liberty
" by Mill (one of my all-time favorites, and a must read for any libertarian-esque minded people) and would like to make a running commentary of it as well, but alas one has work to do. I hope the few readers I have enjoyed this as I certainly did. For those interested in further reading on these topics here are some of the books that Polsby cited up to this point in the book:
Steven J. Rosenstone
and John Mark Hansen, Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America.
Peverill Squire
, Raymond E. Wolfinger, and David P. Glass, "Residential Mobility and Voter Turnout", American Political Science Review (March 1987)Raymond E. Wolfinger
and Steven J. Rosenstone, Who Votes?
Lehman Schlozman
, Sidney Verba, and Henry E. Brady, "Participation's Not a Paradox: The View from American Activists," British Journal of Political Science (January 1995)Robert E. Lane
, "Fathers and Sons: Foundations of Political Belief," American Sociological Review (August 1959)V.O. Key
, Public Opinion and American Democracy
Berelson
, Lazarsfeld, and McPhee, Voting
Robert D. Putnam
, "Political Attitudes and the Local Community," American Political Science Review (September 1966)Paul F. Lazarsfeld
, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet, The People's Choice
