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 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 actors 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

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Plurality voting</span> Type of electoral system

Plurality voting refers to electoral systems in which the candidates in an electoral district who poll more than any other are elected.

<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 or tactical voting is voting in consideration of possible ballots cast by other voters in order to maximize one's satisfaction with the election's results.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Condorcet paradox</span> Self-contradiction of majority rule

In social choice theory, Condorcet's voting paradox is a fundamental discovery by the Marquis de Condorcet that majority rule is inherently self-contradictory. The result implies that it is logically impossible for any voting system to guarantee that a winner will have support from a majority of voters: for example there can be rock-paper-scissors scenario where a majority of voters will prefer A to B, B to C, and also C to A, even if every voter's individual preferences are rational and avoid self-contradiction. Examples of Condorcet's paradox are called Condorcet cycles or cyclic ties.

Theories of political behavior, as an aspect of political science, attempt to quantify and explain the influences that define a person's political views, ideology, and levels of political participation, especially in relation to the role of politicians and their impact on public opinion. Political behavior is the subset of human behavior that involves politics and power. Theorists who have had an influence on this field include Karl Deutsch and Theodor Adorno.

<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.

<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. Scholars distinguish between ideological polarization and affective polarization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Negative campaigning</span> Campaign strategy focused on attacking other alternatives

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.

An independent voter, often also called an unaffiliated voter or non-affiliated voter in the United States, is a voter who does not align themselves with a political party. An independent is variously defined as a voter who votes for candidates on issues rather than on the basis of a political ideology or partisanship; a voter who does not have long-standing loyalty to, or identification with, a political party; a voter who does not usually vote for the same political party from election to election; or a voter who self-describes as an independent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nonpartisan primary</span> Type of primary election

A nonpartisan primary, top-two primary, or jungle primary is a primary election in which all candidates for the same elected office run against each other at once, regardless of political party. This distinguishes them from partisan elections, which are segregated by political party. This is a two-round system.

In game theory and political science, Poisson games are a class of games often used to model the behavior of large populations. One common application is determining the strategic behavior of voters with imperfect information about each other's preferences. Poisson games are most often used to model strategic voting in large electorates with secret and simultaneous voting.

The Latino vote or refers to the voting trends during elections in the United States by eligible voters of Latino background. This phrase is usually mentioned by the media as a way to label voters of this ethnicity, and to opine that this demographic group could potentially tilt the outcome of an election, and how candidates have developed messaging strategies to this ethnic group.

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 or rank the candidates' perceived competence on an issue 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">Comparison of voting rules</span> Comparative politics for electoral systems

This article discusses the methods and results of comparing different electoral systems. There are two broad ways to compare voting systems:

  1. Metrics of voter satisfaction, either through simulation or survey.
  2. Adherence to logical criteria.

Political cognition refers to the study of how individuals come to understand the political world, and how this understanding leads to political behavior. Some of the processes studied under the umbrella of political cognition include attention, interpretation, judgment, and memory. Most of the advancements in the area have been made by scholars in the fields of social psychology, political science, and communication studies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Political polarization in the United States</span>

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. 91 (3). American Political Science Association: 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.