Is Party Identification still the main determinant in Electoral Choice?
Is Party Identification still the main determinant in
Electoral Choice?
Introduction
For the first half of the post-war period it has been relatively easy to find an explanation for
individuals' decisions when it comes to voting for a political party. Also to distinguish the
different social groups and classes that are separated over votes and party following. Mostly
differentiated with occupation, labels of middle, skilled or unskilled working class became the
general criteria of character and political belief to divide votes up. The majority of the working
class would vote for Labour and the middle class would vote for Conservative, and this party
loyalty up till the 1980's, had been growing stronger and became more in-built, where
identifiers with a party would be more likely to agree with their party's policies, with less
emphasis on the actual policies themselves. However, votes of strong identifiers and the
"safe" working class began to fall as the proportion of workers in the manufacturing industry
fell, and as more service and white-collar occupations grew. At this time the "rational choice"
model of voting began to be the more influential factor to take the place of strong "party
identification".
Model Characters
Party Identification
The concept of party identification represents the long-term feelings of attachment of the
voter to a particular political party, though identifiers do not have to actively vote for their
party to feel formally a member, the human instinct to need to be associated with a group to
promote self-image is enough to create an indefinite and almost religious following of any one
party. With identifiers voting is seen more as expressive, not purposeful and instrumental-
"party voting", as opposed to "policy voting".
Party voting can come from many different mediums, initially inherited through the
family and strengthened over time, partisanship is a method of making sense of the
overwhelming barrage of political information which voters are expected to deal with. The
influence of family and social circles creates the party identification and the voter from this
point then forms his/her policy beliefs around the party's ideas, and then on to the vote itself.
Rational Choice
The theory of the "rational choice" voting model is based on the voter recognising his/her own
self-interest, and the voter evaluating the possible parties on the basis of which one will best
serve this self-interest, and vote accordingly. From this it could be said that rational voters are
more politically minded, and would be seen to understand more about policies and
governmental effects, since votes cast are based entirely upon the economic and social
repercussions of any certain party's actions. Also voters of this kind are not affected at all by
their peers beliefs, votes are not cast to "stay in" a group whether it be family, friends or co-
workers, their motives are purely political. The chances of the rational voters party winning is
also a concern, since they are hoping to reap the benefits of the party's implementation of
their policies.
The Comparison
The two voting models are fundamentally different in the way that identifiers' votes have little
to do with politics, if at all, whereas rational voters vote with political interest in mind. Though
both types vote through self-interest it could be said that the character of the voter is the
deciding factor in relation to the two systems. The rational approach requires thought and
some general research, since facts and policies are the basis of decision, identification on the
other hand lacks any mature procedure or thought and shows a childish haste.
In a multi-party system, the attitude towards parties may not always be a ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
to do with politics, if at all, whereas rational voters vote with political interest in mind. Though
both types vote through self-interest it could be said that the character of the voter is the
deciding factor in relation to the two systems. The rational approach requires thought and
some general research, since facts and policies are the basis of decision, identification on the
other hand lacks any mature procedure or thought and shows a childish haste.
In a multi-party system, the attitude towards parties may not always be a supportive
one, a rational voter may not favour a specific party but may be sure of the party he/she would
least desire to come into power, and vote in order to spite that party, known as the "tactical
vote". The party identifier pays little attention to any other party in a careless manner.
It would be easy to say that the rational voting model is the recipe for success as far as
the voter is concerned despite the fact that the government the rational voter elects may not
always stick with those desirable policies, but it all depends on what the elector believes is
important. Partisans often
believe that their vote is insignificant, and for that reason are content to gain a status as a
member of a party, taking what they can from the situation.
There are similarities to be found within the two models. Since politics today is so
media-driven, with almost every move a candidate makes there is a media-motive behind it, it
can be concluded that both types of voter can be inadvertently affected and influenced by
image, popularity and social standing. As an example on a very simple human level, when
Labour last came into power, Tony Blair was a breath of fresh air, young(er), interested and a
caring genuine character, as opposed to the pompous and stale character of the opposition,
John Major. Policies were obviously a factor, but Tony Blair's charisma captured a pool of
identifiers and floating voters, especially the younger generation of voters.
There is a type of voter that could be said to defy any differences between the two
models, the patriotic Scottish National Party supporter votes as a sign of his/her national pride
with a great dislike of being part of "one big England"...........the identifier. The SNP voter
also believes that Scotland is a separate country in it's own right, trusting in it's ability to
maintain it's own social and fiscal economy in the interest of the Scottish people...........the
rationalist.
In conclusion to the comparison of the Rational and Identification voting models, many
assumptions have to be made about individuals as with most theoretical models, but they can
crossover each other in certain aspects of voting behaviour, be drastically different, and can
show some similarities.
Other Voting Models
Partisan Dealignment
From 1945 the overall level of class-based voting for either Labour or Conservative, began to
fall until over half the electorate was rejecting the class imperative, this change in voting model
is called partisan dealignment- the fall of party loyalty. This was generally caused by the
shrinking of the class gap, the working class was beginning to adopt middle class values and
lifestyles, advances in the quality of education providing voters with the skills needed to
analyse politics in a less partisan fashion, and voting accordingly. Voters no longer felt like
they were penned in to voting in line with their job, because social values as well as certain
industries were changing radically, almost as if people began to think for themselves rather
than following the party associated with their job and living area. This change is general
thinking gave way to small and radical parties who in the past would not have even been
noticed, to turn out strong performances in elections.
The Tactical Voting Model
This voting model is relatively rare and came about after the period of "partisan dealignment"
when 3rd parties were being considered when the strong party identification was weakened.
The explanation for voting this way is simple and undoubtedly rational. The idea of this model
is a voter's way of gaining what he/she feels is the most desirable result in an election whether
it being voting a candidate in, or attempting to keep a candidate out, this can be done in three
ways:
. The voter votes for the desired party, with a strong belief in mind that there is a good
chance of the party winning.
2. The voter realises his desired party has no chance of winning, but his second choice may do
so, but is facing strong competition from an undesired party. The voter then votes for his
second choice, ignoring his partisan inclinations, from fear of the unfavourable party winning.
3. None of the voter's preferences have a solid chance of winning, so he/she votes for the
party who is closest to keeping the undesired party out.
This method brings the point to the fore, that politics isn't just about who the voter wants to
represent them, but also who they don't, which is just as important. The tactical elector is
deemed to be a knowledgeable individual since they must be able to accurately perceive the
tactical situation in their own constituency to make a educated decision on their vote. Due to
the low number of tactical voting that takes place, it would not be surprising for potential
tactical voters to feel their individual votes would be lost in partisanship and direct favour
voting.
The Sociological Approach
The sociological approach rejects the individualistic emphasis of both the rational and
identification models of voting, instead the group basis of voting is stressed. "Electoral
sociology" is about the rates at which different groups vote for parties, the voting patterns are
more to do with the group's position in society and the resulting relationships with political
parties. Though it is also fair to say that votes cast under the sociological approach are more
strongly related to voters' attitudes as opposed to their social background. The main groups
that vote in this way are put under four headings: age, gender , colour, nationality and
newspaper readership.
With age there is a clear explanation for voting patterns, it is commonly believed that the
young are likely to vote for radical policies and extremist parties, rather than sticking with the
"traditional value" parties, who offer little excitement or noticeable change. The older
members of the electorate will in most cases be inclined to vote traditional, whether this is due
to their actual age or their long-term following of one party is difficult to recognise . A
Shakespeare quote gathers this idea firmly......"Crabbed age and youth cannot live together:
Youth is full of pleasure, age is full of care."
The approach regarding gender is possibly the most complex of all sociological voting.
Women are regarded as the "minority" due to their late arrival on the voting scene, but
numerically this is not the case. Voting patterns in women have changed a great deal since the
war, gradually, the social standing of women had became more equal to those of men,
meaning an open door to the lifestyles and jobs of men. This leads to a joint standing for both
sexes in the "class-vote". There is fundamental differences in voting patterns due to the
simple difference in sex and social experiences as opposed to social standing, matters
regarding children, abortion for instance could cause gaps due to differences in maternal and
paternal morals. In general, men and women will have separate beliefs over individual issues,
as with the old and young, but in the end both fall into the same party followings and rational
decisions over votes.
In the UK voting patterns of ethnic minorities show that generally black people have
been less inclined to register to vote compared to white people. The idea that any black people
who are discriminated against, feel voting is an act of supporting discriminates is quite far-
fetched, it may be possible that failure to vote, is a way of voicing grievances. However those
of Asian and Afro-Caribbean descent are more likely to vote than white people, the reason for
this is not clear but the involvement of ethnic minorities in politics in the UK could be put down
to the parties' attempts to capture the ethnic vote.
Newspapers are powerful mediators in the election process, due to their ability to take
sides unlike other mediums such as news broadcasting. The first question that has to be asked
is "do readers choose the papers that share their views, or choose the views that their
newspaper promotes?", one thing is certain that the connection between voting and choice of
newspaper is very strong. Tabloids like The Sun, have a very volatile approach to politics and
candidates, and for this reason many young readers can be directly persuaded by this, as well
as other "volatile" electors. Voters can also be swung the opposite way that the newspapers
intend, as with most media-driven events, any publicity can be good publicity, and scandal can
get the face of candidates sprawled all over the front pages, provoking interest in potential
voters.
The Consumer Voting Model
This model sees voters as consumers in a general marketplace choosing parties and policies as
if goods from a shelf, and assumes the voter as active, not passive, responsive rather than
dependant. As with the consumer in the shop, monetary costs play a big part in the
consumers' vote, for example, Saunders (1995:136) found that labour's promise to
renationalize the water and electricity industries frightened off a "substantial proportion" of it's
potential supporters who had bought shares.
Company owners, consumers, workers and the unemployed all are affected greatly by
taxation, benefit, wage limit and insurance policies and under the Consumer model, people will
vote accordingly to which party will serve them best financially. The Conservatives reputation
for economic competency was finally destroyed on "Black Wednesday" 1992, and possibly the
consumer voters were responsible for their eventual defeat.This model is probably the most
believable explanation of voting behaviour since money is one thing that anyone involving
themselves in the running of their country will take into account very seriously.
Retrospective Voting
Retrospective voting is simply a model of voting where the voter elects purely on the basis of
a parties past performance in government, since humans are more likely to respond to past
proof rather than future promises, this model seems perfectly logical. This model may well
explain the voting choice of certain identifiers, though not entirely through emotional
attachment, but with a certain rationality, believe in the long term record of a party and are
not overwhelmingly affected by "minor slip ups". Voters of this model are more concerned
with accomplishments rather than policies.
Conclusion
Despite the partisan dealignment and a decrease in overall loyalty to single parties, Party
identification is still a main influence on electorate choice. In a political world where there are
so many opinions, judgements and ill-feelings, it still seems people prerogative to stay "safe"
with one party, if asked on their views they are not required to think for themselves because
the party and social circle speaks in place. It remains to be seen if one model of voting is more
useful to all concerned, but if there was one that was proved to be superior, it would no doubt
change with time and social feeling. The reasons why people vote will never be fully
discovered, because human motives and emotions cannot be evaluated by researchers and
commercial data. One thing that will always be a part of voting explanation is the politics of
the mind, campaigns and media attention will always subconciously be absorbed by the
electorate.
Bibliography
Government And Politics in Britain John Kingdom
Politics UK: Third Edition Bill Jones
Elections And Voters Martin Harrop
Understanding Political Change Anthony Heath
WWW.SOSIG.AC.UK
MATTHEW WOOD
9905425
POLITICS LEVEL 1
ESSAY
DUE 12TH JANUARY 2001
COMPARE THE "PARTY IDENTIFICATION" AND
"RATIONAL CHOICE" MODELS OF VOTING.
WHAT OTHER MODELS ARE NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A
FULL EXPLANATION OF VOTING CHOICE?