The Voters’ Side of the Story

PS 426

February 26 and March 3

Differences in constituencies

Central tendencies and heterogeneity. Members of Congress will campaign differently depending on their district.

Fenno’s concentric circles: personal, primary, reelection, and geographic. Members of Congress have to pay attention to different parts of their constituency in different ways.

Impact on representation – may be very different depending on the MC’s campaigning style.

In the news

DC representation. Bill passed the Senate by a 61-37 vote (6 Rs voting in favor). But a strong pro-gun amendment may be a problem (passed 62-36). House may strip the amendment.

President vs. Congress in the war on terror. Bush memos after 9/11 argued that Congress had no power in the areas of rendition and the treatment of detainees. Also, a self-defense rationale for warrantless wiretaps.

Midterm exam

Midterm on Thursday (3/5) – 12 multiple choice, 2.5 points each (30)– 4 of 5 IDs, 11 points each (44)– 1 essay (26 points)

Will cover readings and lectures through today.

Turnout

Basic patterns. Comparative evidence. Investment theory of voting–nobody would vote.

Anything that raises the benefits or lowers the cost should increase turnout. Voter registration, government employees, differences between candidates, education and income, mobility, weather. Close elections? Rational abstention.

Consumption theory of voting: The “D” term (duty). People vote for various reasons.

Does low turnout matter? Ideology, attitudes toward the political system, impact on the outcome (higher turnout better for challengers).

Turnout in Presidential and Con-gressional Elections, 1896-2008

3035404550556065707580

1896

1904

1912

1920

1928

1936

1944

1952

1960

1968

1976

1984

1992

2000

2008

Corrected voter turnout

Why people vote as they do

Ideology – vote for candidate closest to your ideological position (89% for Rs and 85% for Ds). Convergence of candidates doesn’t happen that much. Project Vote Smart survey.

Party Identification (seven point scale). Importance for helping shape political behavior and attitudes. Impact on voting. Rise of independents.

Issue voting. "Issue ownership" and the Democrats and Republicans. Prospective and retrospective voting.

Personal characteristics and voter contact. “Likes and dislikes.”

Demographic factors. Race, gender, income and voting.

The Decline in Party Identification, 1952-2008

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1952 1960 1968 1976 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008

Partisans Independents

Midterm loss for the President’s party

Surge and decline and “withdrawn coattails.” Ideological/partisan balancing – not much

evidence for this, but it does happen to some extent.

Presidential coattails – aggregate level and individual level contradiction. Broader policy significance – why does it matter whether presidents have coattails in Congress or not?

Incumbency advantage

How to measure: success rate, vanishing marginals, sophomore surge (about 7%), retirement slump, “Slurge.” Recall and recognition.

Factors explaining incumbency advantage. – Compositional – shift in the distribution of partisan strength in

the electorate. More independents, fewer partisans. Independents more likely to vote for incumbents. This counts for roughly 1/3 of the change.

– Behavioral – changes in the behavior of House members that lead to more electoral success (casework, money, contact with voters (going home every weekend), weak challengers, campaign finance.

Increase in the volatility of incumbent votes

Turnover and Percent DefeatedU.S. House, 1948-2008

1948

1952

1956

1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

2008

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Percent Defeated Percent Turnover

Percent Defeated and TurnoverU.S. Senate, 1948-2008

0

20

40

60

80

100

1948 1954 1960 1966 1972 1978 1984 1990 1996 2002 2008

Percent Turnover (New Senators of the Class)Percent Defeated