Imagine that you have to decide how to vote on a complex issue. What are the best ways to make
your mind about it? 17.The impact of context on vote choice. 16.The funnel of causality in the study of electoral behavior.
Socialization: which period matters most for electoral behaviour?
5.Imagine your are the electoral strategist of Barak
Obama before his re-election. What would you
suggest to him to maximise his chances of re-electi
on?
6.Imagine your are the electoral strategist of Franço
is Hollande. What would you suggest to him to
increase his share of women’s vote in the next elec
tions?
3.Imagine that you are the Tory party strategist in the UK. You have to pick the next candidate for the
legislative election in a district of Wales. This district is very rural. In the last election, the Tory candidate won by a margin of 2 points over the Labor candidate. The Plaid Cymru (the left-wing
regionalist party) performed particularly well, with 25 percent of the vote. Describe your ideal
candidate.
Is class voting decreasing?
Partisan identification or party closeness?
12.Sex vs. gender in electoral behaviour.
Socio demographic determinants of vote choice.
15.Socio economic determinants of vote choice.
19.Vote choice in consensus democracies.
18.The role of policy issues in vote choice.
Tati 4 7 8 10 13 14 Anna 2 5 7 9 11 12 15 18
9.Party identification or party closeness? >According to Miller,In the original orthodox view party identication is a longterm, affective,psychological identication with one's preferred political party. As such it is even comparable with religious aliation > > When one identifies himself with a party it means he agrees on its overall policy BUT now its difficult to draw left-right wing division because there are parties who are economically right-wing, but rather leftist in other policies (or in Taiwan everything rotates around attitude to China). > Identification with party can be inherited from parents, can depend on person’s social surrounding, class…part preferences mostly influences by long-term force as values or ideology and, according to Michigan model, results from early socialization.
>There are new educated generations with new values (post-war). They become less dependent on party identification and mostly follow rational-choice model by choosing the party which best represents their interests. > Cleavages shape party system. But salience of cleavages changes thus, for instance, Communist party is made of workers, but it doesn’t mean all the workers support Communist party. > People can reallign and change party closeness depending on the context : in the 60s civil rights were of great importance. Thus, many people supported Republicans, who better protected these rights.
Electoral change in Europe.
>Traditional cleavages in Europe are Religion and Class but this groups decreased contributions to vote share. Traditional cleavage groups have declined as a result of structural changes in the economies and societies: less manufacturing=>less traditional working class, secularization is growing. Churchers and Unions don’t have the same mobilizing force, people are guided by rational theory model. Though cleavages still exist they do not shape the vote (not enough members) that much as the voters pay attention to party program plus there are not too much, say, Christian or totally leftist parties. So, main change is in the behaviour of cleavage group members, and changes in the size of these cleavage groups. Plus increases in material well-being have shifted the political preferences of some voters away from traditional cleavage politics > Alford index indicates tendency of European voters vote left > But now we can also refer to contemporary debate on cleavages: materialism (phisycal sustainance and safety) vs. post-materialism (self-expression and quality of life) - New cleavages emerged and they are based on post-industrial values and which oppose liberal values to conservative ones (more social than economic). - Kriesy: New cleavage between losers and winners of globalizations. Some social groups have benefits from globalization: white educated people who can travel and works overseas. Losers are uneducated minorities, often women especially if they work in sectors exposed to international economic competition. Social protection system in Europe also has the notion of insiders with permanent stable jobs and insurance and social protections and those who are outsiders. Losers are mainly protesting by aligning to Right parties. It's not a realignment in Europe but a dealignment. Social groups are changing their vote easily, depending on the context and issues. >Frozen interpretation: there are changes but there are not meaningful. Even new issues are forced in left-right mode ( such as environment). >Throwing interpretation: Destructirization of a party system and the changes cleavage structure. Idea of volatility, idea of natural cycle. In the US there is a midterm election which is a test for a president so that we see which party wins. >Europe: local government election and European elections but they are considered of second order by the public. People use European elections as a means to send message to the government with the idea that these elections are not about Europe but national politics. The results are driven by national dynamics. There is a lot turnout and gains from the opposition and smaller parties. Second Order Theory of European Elections: EP election shows satisfaction (or not) with a domestic policy and people rather want to bring change in their local political system. > Old order of class based voting declined new cluss structure arose and it structures the vote!
