Voting Behaviour - Lecture notes 3 PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Voting Behaviour - Lecture notes 3 PDF

Description

Edward Chan

Voting Behaviour & the Media

Page 1

Class Dealignment

Class dealignment describes how the social classes are voting in far fewer numbers for the political party they used to traditionally vote for.

Between 1945 and 1970, 66% of the middle class voted Conservative and 62% of the working class voted Labour. This is no longer so for a variety of reasons, the main ones being:

1. The ‘traditional’ working class has declined. Few workers are employed in heavy industry (coal, steel, shipbuilding) with harsh working conditions and a strong trade union tradition.Over 50% of workers are now to be found in service industries, working in small units, in relatively clean conditions and with a weak trade union tradition.Many will be women and many will be part-time workers. This, increased standards of living, and increasing home ownership, has led many in class C2 to think of themselves as middle class.

2. The middle classes have expanded as the role of government has increased.Many more are employed in modestly paid jobs (social workers, teachers, local government officers), many unionised, than in previous years. Although they still consider themselves middle class, their pay has declined relative to many skilled manual workers.

3. To the extent that voters are voting along class lines – UKIP has taken many working class voters away from Labour – this is particularly true in the North of England. UKIP gained over 100 second places and, due to the prominence of issues like immigration, and what seemed to people in the north to be Labour’s increasingly middle class London elite – working class voters were moving towards UKIP. 4. Working class voters in Scotland have moved to the SNP – mainly caused by the equating of nationalism with socialism during the referendum campaign and then the 2015 election campaign, many working class

Edward Chan

Voting Behaviour & the Media

Page 2

voters moved from Labour to the SNP, with devastating results for Labour north of the border.

Class alignment

Class alignment is the commitment of a particular social class to a political party, meaning that they will vote for that party come-what-may. Class alignment has fallen in recent decades, although there is still evidence that some exists. The general assumption is that the working class would vote for Labour and the middle and upper classes would vote for the Conservatives. Given that assumption, there is still a lot of “class” voting, although Labour’s advantage is only in the unskilled working class/unemployed category.

Class Identification

Class identification is the extent to which a citizen of the UK identifies themselves as members of a certain social class, and whether they do so in the same way as market researchers and political scientists do. In the past, class identification was strongly linked with party loyalty. Those who identified as working class would traditionally vote Labour, and those who identified as middle class would traditionally vote Conservative.

But class identification has diminished for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it is because people have moved between classes, sometimes it is because some people want to be viewed as middle class even though they would be traditionally classes as working class (labelled as ‘aspirational’) and also because some who are now middle class still want to be identified as working class because of their roots. So if class identification has diminished, it follows that party loyalties will diminish. In the 1980s this hit Labour particularly badly, because much of its appeal was to class loyalty. The “embourgeoisement” of the working class into people who defined themselves as middle class (through policies such as the “right-to-

Edward Chan

Voting Behaviour & the Media

Page 3

buy” council housing and the ability of workers to buy shares in their companies when they were privatised) and then ‘classless’ made a difference to the classification of voting behaviour

Political Apathy

Political apathy is best described when a citizen is indifferent in their attitude to political activities, such as electing politicians, having opinions, and their civic responsibility. A more simplified term for political apathy would be that someone ‘cannot be bothered’ to participate in their country’s political system.

Political apathy can stem from a lack of understanding of politics and government that could make it difficult for that person to see any value in voting or from seeing the benefits and costs of the government policies being put forward. The individual might then see it as irrational to try to gain the knowledge as there would supposedly be no benefit to them. Bear in mind though that it is possible for a person to be fully educated and understand politics yet still be wilfully apathetic towards it. Measuring political apathy is difficult, although it can be seen in the amount of the citizens’ knowledge, activity and political involvement.

The reason political apathy is an issue is because it is believed that a nation’s development and for its laws to function to their fullest, there needs to be as high a level of political awareness as possible. This political awareness leads to the ruled and the rulers serving as a check on one another.

It is useful to distinguish here between ‘apathy’ and ‘abstention’, with the latter being a deliberate decision not to vote, or take part in the political process, as a way of sending a message to politicians.

Non-Participation

Non-participation is the absence of citizens from the political process.

Edward Chan

Voting Behaviour & the Media

Page 4

The central measure of non-participation is concerned with those registered to vote who choose not to, which is measured by ‘turnout’.

However, other forms of non-participation reflect the alternative opportunities to participate in the politics, which can include membership of political parties and membership of pressure groups.

Non-participation in elections can be explained in three ways. 1. First is that a voter is absent from the country during an election, or ill. Given voting in the UK has to be in person at a polling station, this is entirely possible.

2. The second explanation is ‘apathy’, which is where a voter is able to vote, but essentially ‘can’t be bothered to’ as they are just not interested or have other priorities.

3. The third explanation is ‘abstention’ which is a conscious decision not to vote. Abstentions occur for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, people are simply content with the status quo (called ‘hapathy’), but they may also feel their vote would be wasted under our FPTP election system, the result of the election is a foregone conclusion, the parties have too similar policies, or they are generally disillusioned with the political process. Non-participation, if cause by the people being happy with the status quo, might be seen as a positive sign. It is also true that sometimes high participation means that there is a high amount of discontent, with many feeling they need to protest. But non-participation worries political scientists as it usually suggests alienation from the system, makes it more likely that people use non-peaceful and undemocratic methods of making themselves heard. It undermines the legitimacy of the political system, perhaps forcing the state to rely more on coer-

Edward Chan

Voting Behaviour & the Media

Page 5

cion. Finally, it can allow unrepresentative minorities to control decision-making, and encourages social exclusion.

Essentially, if people are not motivated to participate in a democracy then they are likely to lose the rights and freedoms that have been established. Freedom is like a fortress - of little use without any defenders (Isaiah Berlin).

Voting Behaviour Voting behaviour is the way that different people tend to vote. It is studied so that political scientists, or more accurately political psychologists, can understand why certain people vote for different political parties and so that political parties can predict who might vote for them in the future, which helps them to plan the policies, communication and the people who might best represent them and persuade voters to vote for them at the next election.

The study of voting behaviour can be roughly divided into long-term and shortterm influences. Long-term influences include social class, gender, race, culture, religion, age, education, housing tenure and simple long-term political alignment (when people just say “I’m Labour” for instance). Short-term influence include the performance of the governing party, major issues, the electoral campaign,the image of party leaders, the influence of the mass media and major political events (e.g. war or economic crises).

Access Points

ACCESS POINTS are the places to which pressure groups go to exert influence.

Assuming they have a choice, it’s a good guide to where the real power lies in a political system.

The amount of access points available depends on the type of political system that operates. In the UK, where there is not a clear separation of powers and checks on the executive are weak, there are fewer access points than in the

Edward Chan

Voting Behaviour & the Media

Page 6

USA, where there is a clear separation of powers and an entrenched system of checks and balances. However, the range of access points available to UK pressure groups have increased in recent years with closer integration with the EU, the creation of devolved assemblies, and the creation of a more independent UK Supreme Court, separate from the House of Lords. Ministers – the favoured access point in the UK, closet to where the decisions are actually made. Only a few insider groups (CBI, NFU) have direct access, but indirect access is available through advisory committees, through the growing number of ministerial special advisors, and for outsider protest groups, online petitions (road pricing). . There are several stages in the policy-making process at which ministers can be approached.

Parliament – Although MPs are limited by party discipline, governments facing an election or who have small majorities (Conservatives 92-97 UWC against post office privatisation ) can be influenced by pressure groups. MPs can be a parliamentary spokesman (Frank Field – Child Poverty Action Group), introduce a Private Member’s Bill (David Steel, Abortion Bill), act as lobby consultants or join an All-Party parliamentary group.

Political Parties – Some ties are formal (trade unions and Labour) and pressure can be applied through conference and funding. Some ties are informal (e.g. Electoral Reform Society and Labour Party 1997).

Courts – Lobbying British judges are not allowed but pressure groups can bring cases under the law to make a point or establish that the law supports their view (2008 Gurkha Veterans residency campaign).

Devolved Assemblies & Local Councils – The devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are being increasingly targeted on areas in which they have authority. The Greater London Authority and local councils are potential targets too as long as the issues involved are London-based or purely local respectively.

Edward Chan

Voting Behaviour & the Media

Page 7

The Media and Public Opinion – This tends to be a final target when all other means have failed, because even if you convince public opinion, you still have to persuade government. Examples include the Countryside Alliance 2004 and Anti-cuts movement 2010-2011.

The EU – Pressure groups lobby the EU if the EU has responsibility for the policy area (agriculture), the UK government is unsympathetic, because their sectional interest or cause is supranational, or simply as an additional access point. Under the European Communities Act 1972, European law takes precedence over national laws where the two are in conflict. Since 1986, decisions made by the Council of Ministers are made under a system of qualified majority voting (QMV) rather than unanimity, so pressure groups need to build up broader European support rather than simply lobbying their own national government to use a national veto. Pressure Groups can apply pressure at EU level through national governments if they are sympathetic (e.g. John Major for beef farmers during BSE crisis), through ‘Eurogroups’ of pressure groups (European Trade Union Confederation), and directly to the institutions of the EU (which is why the Law Society has an office in Brussels)....