Low information voter

Last updated

Low information voters, also known as misinformation voters, are people who may vote yet are generally poorly informed about issues. The phrase is mainly used in the United States and has become popular since the mid-1990s.

Contents

Origins

American pollster and political scientist Samuel Popkin coined the term "low-information" in 1991 when he used the phrase "low-information signaling" in his book The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns . Low-information signaling referred to cues or heuristics used by voters in lieu of substantial information to determine whom to vote for. Examples include voters liking Bill Clinton for eating at McDonald's and perceiving John Kerry and Barack Obama as elitist for wind-surfing and golfing, respectively. [1]

Meaning

The ideological views of most low-information voters tend to be more moderate than those of high-information voters. Low-information voters are less likely to vote and when they do they generally vote for a candidate they find personally appealing. They tend to be swing voters and they tend to vote split-ticket more than well-informed voters do. Researchers attribute this to low-information voters not having developed clear cut ideological preferences. [2] [3] [4]

Linguist George Lakoff has written that the term is a pejorative mainly used by American liberals to refer to people who vote conservative against what liberals assume to be their own interests and assumes they do it because they lack sufficient information. Liberals, he said, attribute the problem in part to deliberate Republican efforts at misinforming voters. [5]

In a 2011 article titled "Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult", thirty-year Republican House of Representatives and Senate staffer Mike Lofgren characterized low-information voters as anti-intellectual and hostile-to-science "religious cranks" and claimed Republicans are deliberately manipulating low information voters to undermine their confidence in American democratic institutions. [6]

A 2012 paper by six American political scientists called "A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics" challenged the idea that Republicans want a low-information electorate and argued instead that both major American parties do. Noting that 95% of incumbents in the highly polarized House of Representatives win re-election despite voters' preference for centrist representation, the paper theorizes that voters' infrequent penalizing of extremist behaviour represents not approval, but a lack of attention and information. This, the paper says, is supported by the fact that when congressional districts and media markets overlap to create more informed electorates, extremist House members are at much greater risk for defeat. The paper proposes that in the American political system interest groups and activists are the key actor and that the electorate is uninformed and bamboozled. [7]

Effects

A 1992 study found that in the absence of other information, voters used candidates' physical attractiveness to draw inferences about their personal qualities and political ideology. [8] A study performed using logistic regression analysis on data from the 1986 through 1994 American National Election Studies found that low-information voters tend to assume female and black candidates are more liberal than male and white candidates of the same party. [9] A 2003 study that analyzed precinct-level data from city council elections held in Peoria, Illinois between 1983 and 1999 found that the placement of candidates' names on the ballot was a point of influence for low-information voters. [10] An analysis concerned with the "puzzling finding" that incumbent legislators in mature democracies charged with corruption are not commonly punished in elections found that less-informed voters were significantly more likely to vote for incumbents accused of corruption than were their better-informed counterparts, presumably because they did not know about the allegations. [11]

Voting correctly

Related to the concept of a low information voter, voting correctly is a concept from political psychology that refers to a vote decision "that is the same as the choice which would have been made under conditions of full information." [12] Measurements of correct votes are used to determine how accurate low information voters are at determining the candidate or party that best represents the voters' interests.

See also

Related Research Articles

Plurality voting refers to electoral systems in which a candidate who polls more than any other is elected. In systems based on single-member districts, it elects just one member per district and may also be referred to as first-past-the-post (FPTP), single-member plurality (SMP/SMDP), single-choice voting, simple plurality or relative majority. A system that elects multiple winners elected at once with the plurality rule and where each voter casts multiple X votes in a multi-seat district is referred to as plurality block voting. A semi-proportional system that elects multiple winners elected at once with the plurality rule and where each voter casts just one vote in a multi-seat district is known as single non-transferable voting.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Political party</span> Organization coordinating policy priorities and candidates for government positions

A political party is an organization that coordinates candidates to compete in a particular country's elections. It is common for the members of a party to hold similar ideas about politics, and parties may promote specific ideological or policy goals.

Strategic voting, also called tactical voting, sophisticated voting or insincere voting, occurs in voting systems when a voter votes for a candidate or party other than their sincere preference to prevent an undesirable outcome. For example, in a simple plurality election, a voter might gain a better outcome by voting for a less preferred but more generally popular candidate.

A two-party system is a political party system in which two major political parties consistently dominate the political landscape. At any point in time, one of the two parties typically holds a majority in the legislature and is usually referred to as the majority or governing party while the other is the minority or opposition party. Around the world, the term has different meanings. For example, in the United States, the Bahamas, Jamaica, and Zimbabwe, the sense of two-party system describes an arrangement in which all or nearly all elected officials belong to either of the two major parties, and third parties rarely win any seats in the legislature. In such arrangements, two-party systems are thought to result from several factors, like "winner takes all" or "first past the post" election systems. The electoral competition is mostly limited to the two major parties.

Party discipline is a system of political norms, rules and subsequent respective consequences for deviance that are designed to ensure the relative cohesion of members of the respective party group. In political parties specifically, the essential purpose of party discipline is to get all its parliamentary members to maintain the party line and vote in support of policies agreed to by a majority of the parliamentary members.

Primary elections, or direct primary are voting processes by which voters can indicate their preference for their party's candidate, or a candidate in general, in an upcoming general election, local election, or by-election. Depending on the country and administrative divisions within the country, voters might consist of the general public in what is called an open primary, or solely the members of a political party in what is called a closed primary. In addition to these, there are other variants on primaries that are used by many countries holding elections throughout the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protest vote</span> Vote cast in an election as a form of political protest

A protest vote is a vote cast in an election to demonstrate dissatisfaction with the choice of candidates or the current political system. Protest voting takes a variety of forms and reflects numerous voter motivations, including political apathy. Where voting is compulsory, casting a blank vote is available for those who do not wish to choose a candidate, or to protest. Unlike abstention elsewhere, blank votes are counted.

Philip Ernest Converse was an American political scientist. He was a professor in political science and sociology at the University of Michigan who conducted research on public opinion, survey research, and quantitative social science.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Political campaign</span> Attempt to influence the decision making process within a specific group

A political campaign is an organized effort which seeks to influence the decision making progress within a specific group. In democracies, political campaigns often refer to electoral campaigns, by which representatives are chosen or referendums are decided. In modern politics, the most high-profile political campaigns are focused on general elections and candidates for head of state or head of government, often a president or prime minister.

Vote splitting is an electoral effect in which the distribution of votes among multiple similar candidates reduces the chance of winning for any of the similar candidates, and increases the chance of winning for a dissimilar candidate. This is commonly known as the spoiler effect, which can discourage minor party candidacies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Voter turnout</span> Percentage of a countrys eligible voters who actually vote within elections

In political science, voter turnout is the participation rate of a given election. This is typically either the percentage of registered voters, eligible voters, or all voting-age people. According to Stanford University political scientists Adam Bonica and Michael McFaul, there is a consensus among political scientists that "democracies perform better when more people vote."

Political polarization is the divergence of political attitudes away from the center, towards ideological extremes.

A swing vote is a vote that is seen as potentially going to any of a number of candidates in an election, or, in a two-party system, may go to either of the two dominant political parties. Such votes are usually sought after in election campaigns, since they can play a big role in determining the outcome.

Negative campaigning is the process of deliberately spreading negative information about someone or something to worsen the public image of the described. A colloquial, and somewhat more derogatory, term for the practice is mudslinging.

A safe seat is an electoral district (constituency) in a legislative body which is regarded as fully secure, for either a certain political party, or the incumbent representative personally or a combination of both. With such seats, there is very little chance of a seat changing hands because of the political leanings of the electorate in the constituency concerned and/or the popularity of the incumbent member. The opposite type of seat is a marginal seat. The phrase "tantamount to election" is often used to describe winning the dominant party's nomination for a safe seat.

A nonpartisan blanket primary is a primary election in which all candidates for the same elected office run against each other at once, regardless of the political party. Partisan elections are, on the other hand, segregated by political party. Nonpartisan blanket primaries are slightly different from most other elections systems with two rounds/a runoff, also known as "jungle primaries" , in a few ways. The first round of a nonpartisan blanket primary is officially the "primary." Round two is the "general election." Round two must be held, even if one candidate receives a majority in the first round.

Split-ticket voting is when a voter in an election votes for candidates from different political parties when multiple offices are being decided by a single election, as opposed to straight-ticket voting, where a voter chooses candidates from the same political party for every office up for election. Split-ticket voting can occur in certain mixed-member systems which allow for it, such as mixed-member proportional and parallel voting systems.

The term issue voting describes when voters cast their vote in elections based on political issues. In the context of an election, issues include "any questions of public policy which have been or are a matter of controversy and are sources of disagreement between political parties.” According to the theory of issue voting, voters compare the candidates' respective principles against their own in order to decide for whom to vote.

Voting behavior refers to how people decide how to vote. This decision is shaped by a complex interplay between an individual voter's attitudes as well as social factors. Voter attitudes include characteristics such as ideological predisposition, party identity, degree of satisfaction with the existing government, public policy leanings, and feelings about a candidate's personality traits. Social factors include race, religion and degree of religiosity, social and economic class, educational level, regional characteristics, and gender. The degree to which a person identifies with a political party influences voting behavior, as does social identity. Voter decision-making is not a purely rational endeavor but rather is profoundly influenced by personal and social biases and deeply held beliefs as well as characteristics such as personality, memory, emotions, and other psychological factors. Voting advice applications and avoidance of wasted votes through strategic voting can impact voting behavior.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Political polarization in the United States</span> Divisions among people with different political ideologies in the United States

Political polarization is a prominent component of politics in the United States. Scholars distinguish between ideological polarization and affective polarization, both of which are apparent in the United States. In the last few decades, the U.S. has experienced a greater surge in ideological polarization and affective polarization than comparable democracies.

References

  1. ↑ Walker, Diana (24 April 2008). "The Incredibly Shrinking Democrats". Time magazine. Retrieved 16 November 2020.
  2. ↑ Palfrey, Thomas R.; Keith T. Poole (August 1987). "The Relationship between Information, Ideology, and Voting Behavior". American Journal of Political Science. 31 (3): 511–530. doi:10.2307/2111281. JSTOR   2111281.
  3. ↑ Lauderdale, Benjamin E. (June 2012). "Does Inattention to Political Debate Explain the Polarization Gap Between the U.S. Congress and Public?" (PDF). Unpublished.[ permanent dead link ]
  4. ↑ Smalley, Suzanne (31 May 2008). "Just How Low Will They Go?". Newsweek magazine. Archived from the original on 8 September 2012. Retrieved 26 August 2012.
  5. ↑ Lakoff, George (9 August 2012). "Dumb and dumber: the low-information voter". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 26 August 2012. Retrieved 8 March 2015.
  6. ↑ Lofgren, Mike (3 September 2011). "Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult". Truthout. Archived from the original on 24 July 2012. Retrieved 26 August 2012.
  7. ↑ Bawn, Kathleen; Cohen, Martin; Karol, David; Masket, Seth; Noel, Hans; Zaller, John (September 2012). "A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics" (PDF). Perspectives on Politics. 10 (3): 571–597. doi:10.1017/S1537592712001624. S2CID   18405460.
  8. ↑ Riggle, Ellen D.; Ottati, Victor C.; Wyer, Robert S.; Kuklinski, James; Schwarz, Norbert (1 March 1992). "Bases of political judgments: The role of stereotypic and nonstereotypic information". Political Behavior. 14 (1): 67–87. doi:10.1007/BF00993509. S2CID   55280249.
  9. ↑ Mcdermott, Monika L (1 December 1998). "Race and Gender Cues in Low-Information Elections". Political Research Quarterly. 51 (4): 895–918. doi:10.1177/106591299805100403. S2CID   145071887.
  10. ↑ Brockington, David (1 January 2003). "A Low Information Theory of Ballot Position Effect" (PDF). Political Behavior. 25 (1): 1–27. doi:10.1023/A:1022946710610. S2CID   152659081.
  11. ↑ Klasnja, Marko (2011). "Why Do Malfeasant Politicians Maintain Political Support? Testing the "Uninformed Voter" Argument". Social Science Research Network. SSRN   1901683.{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  12. ↑ Lau, Richard R.; David P. Redlawsk (September 1997). "Voting Correctly". American Political Science Review. American Political Science Association. 91 (3): 585–598. doi:10.2307/2952076. JSTOR   2952076. S2CID   251092235.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.