Low turnout rates and discussions of disaffected voters are receiving considerable attention as we approach the 2016 U.S. presidential elections. Do trends in American’s attitudes about voting and correlates of these attitudes (political involvement, efficacy, and social connectedness) confirm the pessimistic assessments and do voters across gender and race/ethnic groups think similarly? Data from the American National Election Studies (ANES) provide some reason for optimism. Trends over the past few presidential election periods show a majority of Americans intend to vote and this majority is increasing. Trends show increases or stability on numerous correlates of voting attitudes including political involvement and social connectedness. Trends in voting attitudes by gender and race/ethnicity show considerable variation. Women and race/ethnic minorities (especially African Americans) are an important element of the positive trends shown here. Findings on external efficacy are an exception to the generally optimistic trends with data showing a majority of respondents don’t believe public officials care what people like the respondent think. However, trends do not show an increase in negative attitudes about public officials. Implications of the findings are considered.
Long-term declines in voter turnout ( United States Election Project, 2016 ) and discussions of disaffected voters ( Ignatius, 2016 ; DelReal, 2014 ; Jackson, 2015 ) are part of the current political landscape. As we approach the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, it is important to consider trends in American’s attitudes about voting. Do these trends support the generally pessimistic assessments about voting?
Voting behaviors and attitudes are important elements of citizenship, civil society, and the American Dream ( McElwee, 2015a, 2015b; 2016 ; Atkeson & Carrillo, 2007 ; Hanson & White, 2011 ). Although there is some diversity of opinion on the degree to which voting attitudes are related to voting turnout, many have argued that these attitudes affect voting behaviors ( Vecchione & Caprara, 2009 ; Blais et al., 2011 ). Additionally, there is agreement that attitudes about voting are critical in healthy democracies ( Blais, 2000 ; Barbour & Wright, 2012 ). Most models suggest three important correlates that are important in understanding voting related attitudes and behaviors―political involvement, political efficacy, and social connectedness ( Pinkleton & Austin, 2001 ; Timpone, 1998 ; Blais, 2000 ; Vechione & Caprara, 2009 ; Atkeson & Carrillo, 2007 ).
Can we make general conclusions about voting attitudes and correlates among Americans or do these attitudes vary by important social statuses? Increasing evidence suggests that simple statements about voting behaviors and attitudes are deceiving, and ignore considerable diversity across gender ( Atkeson & Carrillo, 2007 ; Verba et al., 1987 ; Shearer, 2016 ; Pratto et al., 1997 ; CAWP, 2015 ) and race/ethnic groups ( Bobo, 1990 ; Barreto, 2007 ; Shearer, 2016 ; Frey, 2013 ; Preston & Santos, 2012 ; Lopez & Gonzalez-Barrera, 2013 ).
Using data from the American National Election Studies (ANES), this research examines trends in voting related attitudes and in correlates of voting attitudes. We also address the question of whether trends in voting attitudes are related to the correlates. That is, do the voter attitude trends vary across groups of people that are high and low on correlates involving political involvement, political efficacy, and social connectedness? Finally, given the diversity in the U.S. population, the research examines how a consideration of social statuses involving gender and race/ethnicity provides further insight into the trends in voting attitudes and correlates over time. Trend data from ANES public opinion polls conducted over the past 2 decades are used to answer our research questions.
The data used here were retrieved from the Time Series Cumulative Data File (1948- 2012) available on the American National Election Studies website (http://www.electionstudies.org/). The ANES data are an invaluable resource for researchers interested in a rich variety of voting data for probability samples that allow comparisons across individuals, groups, and time. More specifically ANES involves a series of biennial National Election Studies where face to face surveys (sometimes supplemented by an internet sample) are conducted on probability samples of eligible voters in the U.S. The ANES data include measures on issues involving electoral participation, voting behavior, and public opinion as well as other demographic and attitudinal measures. The 2012 data are the 29th study in a series of election studies conducted during years of presidential elections since 1948. The years included in this trend analysis are: 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012. These years were chosen in order to examine attitudes over a nearly 2-decade period. They were also chosen since the data for most years include repeated measures of our study variables. Although the ANES data is an excellent resource for answering our research questions about voting attitudes, correlates, and variation by gender and race/ethnicity, it is always desirable to have more extensive measures of the variables in the survey and greater representation of race/ethnic minority groups in the sample.
Our research questions focus on trends in voting attitudes and correlates as well as gender and race/ethnic variation in these trends. ANES includes variables that are indicators of the voting attitudes (see question in
9/3/96-11/4/96 | 9/5/00-11/6/00 | 9/7/04-11/1/04 | 9/2/08-11/3/08 | 9/8/12-11/5/12 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
% | % | % | % | % | |
Don’t know | 2.7 | 2.9 | 2.5 | 4.1 | 18.3 |
Democratic candidate | 47.4 | 40.6 | 41.9 | 50.3 | 43.9 |
Republican candidate | 28.1 | 32.3 | 39.6 | 26.1 | 28.6 |
Undecided | 3.9 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 5.1 | 2.5 |
Respondent does not intend to vote | 12.2 | 13.2 | 10.8 | 12.6 | 3.6 |
Other candidate | 5.8 | 6.8 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 3.1 |
N | 4518 | 4723 | 3149 | 6613 | 15,969 |
ANES: “Needless to say, the election for President of United States is a long time away in November. But I’d like to ask you for your best guess about who you will vote for in the election in November. Who do you think you will vote for?”
9/3/96-11/4/96 | 9/5/00-11/6/00 | 9/7/04-11/1/04 | 9/2/08-11/3/08 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
% | % | % | % | |
Not much interested | 22.9 | 21.8 | 15.3 | 14.8 |
Somewhat interested | 49.6 | 49.3 | 43.2 | 41.1 |
Very much interested | 27.5 | 28.9 | 41.5 | 44.5 |
Don’t know | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
N | 4518 | 4723 | 3149 | 3335 |
ANES: “Some people don’t pay much attention to political campaigns. How are you, would you say that you have been/were very much interested, somewhat interested, or not much interested in (1996: following) the political campaigns so far this year?”
9/3/96-11/4/96 | 9/5/00-11/6/00 | 9/7/04-11/1/04 | 9/2/08-11/3/08 | 9/8/12-11/5/12 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
% | % | % | % | % | |
Agree | 60.9 | 55.3 | 49.2 | 58.5 | 61.1 |
Disagree | 25.0 | 34.1 | 35.1 | 24.1 | 18.7 |
Neither agree nor disagree | 13.9 | 10.2 | 15.2 | 17.1 | 20.0 |
Don’t know; not sure; it depends; can’t say; refused to say | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
N | 4019 | 4061 | 2778 | 3007 | 8142 |
ANES: “I don’t think public officials care much what people like me think”.
9/3/96-11/4/96 | 9/7/04-11/1/04 | 9/8/12-11/5/12 | |
---|---|---|---|
% | % | % | |
Every week―more than once a week | 13.0 | 14.4 | 9.9 |
Every week―once a week | 12.5 | 11.7 | 12.6 |
Almost every week | 11.5 | 11.2 | 11.6 |
Once or twice a month | 14.4 | 15.1 | 10.4 |
A few times a year | 17.8 | 15.5 | 14.9 |
Never | 30.3 | 31.0 | 40.0 |
Don’t know | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
N | 4518 | 4723 | 15,969 |
ANES: “Lots of things come up that keep people from attending religious services if they want to. Thinking about your life these days, do you ever attend religious services, apart from occasional weddings, baptisms, or funerals? (If Yes) “Do you go to religious services every week, almost every week, once or twice a month, a few times a year, or never?”
Trend analyses are an important part of understanding shifts in public opinion. These analyses of opinion over time are by nature descriptive. Thus our examination of voting related attitudes and correlates is not causal but provides essential base-line descriptive data on levels of support for key indicators of voting. Importantly, our research also describes variation in these indicators by two critical demographic characteristics― gender and race/ethnicity. Cross-tables are used to show trends in voting related attitudes and correlates. Line-graphs are used to show variation in these trends by gender and race/ethnicity.
Relationship between Voting Attitudes and Correlates of Voting Correlates. Before conducting the trend analysis of voting related attitudes, we sought to discover whether trends in voting attitudes and correlates (involvement, efficacy, and connectedness) are correlated in the ANES data. In analyses not shown here, we examined voting attitudes within groups of respondents who reported high and low political involvement, political efficacy, and social connectedness. More specifically we look at intent to vote within categories of correlates of voting attitudes. We found a strong connection between each of the correlates and voting attitudes―those with higher involvement, efficacy, and connectedness are the most likely to intend to vote.
Attitudes toward Voting. Data in
In
Intent to vote trends across race/ethnic groups are shown in
not vote. However, it should be noted that intent to not vote did decrease across race groups in 2012.
Correlates of Voting Attitudes―Political Involvement. Data in
Trends in interest in this year’s political campaigns by race/ethnicity (
Correlates of Voting Attitudes―Political Efficacy. Data in
In
Trends in
about public officials (e.g., in 1996 the figures on percent agree show 65.5% for Blacks vs. 49.5% for Hispanics and 59.9% for Whites). This trend reversed in 2012 with Blacks now having the highest efficacy and being the least likely among the race/ethnic groups to agree with the statement (54.6% vs. 59.7% for Hispanics and 63.5% for Whites). Thus, results on opinion about whether the respondent thinks public officials don’t care suggest that Whites had the highest external efficacy (relative to other race/ethnic groups) in 1996 and the lowest in 2012. Another interesting trend in
Correlates of Voting Attitudes―Social Connectedness.
Trends on attendance at religious services for different race/ethnic groups in
were less likely than Whites to report this level of high attendance but by 2012 both Hispanics and Blacks were more likely than Whites to report attending religious services more than once a week (16.1% for Blacks, 9.1% for Hispanics, and 8.4% for Whites).
Discussion of Findings. Although other researchers have not used the trend data used here, our findings are consistent with others who have found a relationship between voting attitudes and the correlates involving involvement, efficacy, and connectedness ( Timpone, 1998 ; Atkeson & Carrillo, 2007 ). Our findings showing positive trends or stability on many of these attitudes and correlates are more optimistic than some research on voting turnout ( United States Election Project, 2016 ) and disaffected voters (e.g., Ignatius, 2016 ). Although there is limited research on gender and race/ ethnic diversity and voting attitudes, the encouraging trends shown here on some positive attitudes and correlates among women and among racial/ethnic minorities are supported by a growing body of research (e.g., Atkeson & Carrillo, 2007 ; Weiner, 2013 ; Preston & Santos, 2012 ).
Data from ANES were used to examine voting attitudes and correlates of voting attitudes. Results suggest some interesting trends contributing to optimistic conclusions about these attitudes and opinions that are important elements of democracy and civil society. U.S. respondents increasingly report that they plan to vote. Over the past 2 decades, trends show increased political involvement (interest in political campaigns). Trends show stability in social connectedness (weekly attendance at religious services) and efficacy (belief that public officials do not care). Findings suggest significant variation in trends on the voter attitudes and correlates across gender and race/ethnic groups. As we approach the 2016 presidential elections, conclusions from this analysis of trends suggest that Americans are overall positive in their attitudes about voting and on measures of political involvement and social connectedness. The results also suggest that these trends are not one size fits all―there is considerable variation across gender and race/ethnicity. Some of the optimism in the attitudes of American voters comes from the influence of women and race/ethnic minorities.
Hanson, S. L. (2016). Trends in U.S. Voting Attitudes with a Consideration of Variation by Gender and Race/ Ethnicity. Open Journal of Political Science, 6, 454-465. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojps.2016.64038