In applying theories of voting and non-voting behavior to 2004 presidential election, it is better to have some explanation on the theories themselves.
Theories of voting are put into 2 categories: party identification and issue voting.
If in an election people vote according to their party ID, regardless of who the candidate of their party is, we can say their model of voting behavior is party identification.
But if people vote regardless of party affiliations, it is said that their voting behavior is issue voting.
In the issue voting model, people put more emphasis on the candidates' personalities and characteristics rather than their party affiliation.
Besides, he issues of the time are also very crucial to their decision.
In other word they look at candidates' personalities and the position they take over specific issues of the time.
This can be done either prospectively or retrospectively.
In the prospective way, the voter looks at the policies of the parties and selects the on that resembles his/her position on the issues more.
In the retrospective way, the voter only looks at the achievements and failures of the candidates as measure.
Non-voting behavior also has 2 explanations: institutional and socio-political.
The difficult registration procedures that are mostly on the shoulders of the voter are one of the institutional explanations.
2 explanations exist in the socio-political branch; people are either happy or disillusioned with their conditions and for this they don't participate or they participate in the process of decision-making in other ways.
I think that 2004 presidential election was an example of issue voting but let's see how.
"The back and forth movement seen in party ID over the course of election year 2004 provides strong evidence that it is not a particularly stable measure.
All other things being equal, we would expect party ID to change little from quarter to quarter, but experience shows that it can and does change direction, often in an unpredictable manner.
" "Moving from the pre-9/11 to early post-9/11 period, the Republicans gained ground across the board, but those gains were generally larger among subgroups who had been less supportive of George W.
Bush and his policies.
The "rally 'round the flag" effect helped push Bush's approval rating to a level not seen since his father received close to 90 percent approval in the Newsweek poll after the Persian Gulf War victory, and it also seemed to boost the Republican Party's standing with those who don't generally lean that way.
Republican gains were more pronounced among women than men.
The Republicans improved their position significantly among African Americans, Hispanics, and whites who live outside the South" The statistics show major changes in the party ID of the voters, which is called party dealignment.
In cases of party dealignment, people no longer consider party affiliations and tend to focus on the issues of the day.
David Remer gives a list of the issues that voters in 2004 election faced: o"Voter party identification oPolitical fund raising.
oPublic vs.
Private education.
oSchools: Local Standards vs.
National Standards.
oPublic Debt.
oWar Powers: congressional vs.
executive.
oGovernment: open or secret.
oOne party or multiple party government.
oEconomic Mix.
oLobbyist Power.
oNational Security: Offensive vs.
Defensive.
oWealth Distribution.
oMedia Responsibility and Ownership.
oPublic Resources: To privatize or not.
oGlobalization: Diplomatic Leadership vs.
Force.
oEnvironment: Proactive vs.
Reactive policy.
(1) So the voters considered these issues as measures for electing their candidates.
That's why I call 2004 election an issue voting election.
But for those who have not voted in 2004 election, the most likely reason can be the socio-political one.
In this case I think it was disillusionment with the government that prevented people from voting.
People knew that whoever became the President, their conditions as a country in war abroad would not change.
1) http://www.
watchblog.
com/thirdparty/archives/000248.
html
Theories of voting are put into 2 categories: party identification and issue voting.
If in an election people vote according to their party ID, regardless of who the candidate of their party is, we can say their model of voting behavior is party identification.
But if people vote regardless of party affiliations, it is said that their voting behavior is issue voting.
In the issue voting model, people put more emphasis on the candidates' personalities and characteristics rather than their party affiliation.
Besides, he issues of the time are also very crucial to their decision.
In other word they look at candidates' personalities and the position they take over specific issues of the time.
This can be done either prospectively or retrospectively.
In the prospective way, the voter looks at the policies of the parties and selects the on that resembles his/her position on the issues more.
In the retrospective way, the voter only looks at the achievements and failures of the candidates as measure.
Non-voting behavior also has 2 explanations: institutional and socio-political.
The difficult registration procedures that are mostly on the shoulders of the voter are one of the institutional explanations.
2 explanations exist in the socio-political branch; people are either happy or disillusioned with their conditions and for this they don't participate or they participate in the process of decision-making in other ways.
I think that 2004 presidential election was an example of issue voting but let's see how.
"The back and forth movement seen in party ID over the course of election year 2004 provides strong evidence that it is not a particularly stable measure.
All other things being equal, we would expect party ID to change little from quarter to quarter, but experience shows that it can and does change direction, often in an unpredictable manner.
" "Moving from the pre-9/11 to early post-9/11 period, the Republicans gained ground across the board, but those gains were generally larger among subgroups who had been less supportive of George W.
Bush and his policies.
The "rally 'round the flag" effect helped push Bush's approval rating to a level not seen since his father received close to 90 percent approval in the Newsweek poll after the Persian Gulf War victory, and it also seemed to boost the Republican Party's standing with those who don't generally lean that way.
Republican gains were more pronounced among women than men.
The Republicans improved their position significantly among African Americans, Hispanics, and whites who live outside the South" The statistics show major changes in the party ID of the voters, which is called party dealignment.
In cases of party dealignment, people no longer consider party affiliations and tend to focus on the issues of the day.
David Remer gives a list of the issues that voters in 2004 election faced: o"Voter party identification oPolitical fund raising.
oPublic vs.
Private education.
oSchools: Local Standards vs.
National Standards.
oPublic Debt.
oWar Powers: congressional vs.
executive.
oGovernment: open or secret.
oOne party or multiple party government.
oEconomic Mix.
oLobbyist Power.
oNational Security: Offensive vs.
Defensive.
oWealth Distribution.
oMedia Responsibility and Ownership.
oPublic Resources: To privatize or not.
oGlobalization: Diplomatic Leadership vs.
Force.
oEnvironment: Proactive vs.
Reactive policy.
(1) So the voters considered these issues as measures for electing their candidates.
That's why I call 2004 election an issue voting election.
But for those who have not voted in 2004 election, the most likely reason can be the socio-political one.
In this case I think it was disillusionment with the government that prevented people from voting.
People knew that whoever became the President, their conditions as a country in war abroad would not change.
1) http://www.
watchblog.
com/thirdparty/archives/000248.
html
Source...