Michigan model

Last updated

The Michigan model is a theory of voter choice, based primarily on sociological and party identification factors. Originally proposed by political scientists, beginning with an investigation of the 1952 Presidential election, [1] at the University of Michigan's Survey Research Centre. These scholars developed and refined an approach to voting behaviour [1] in terms of a voter's psychological attachment to a political party, [2] acknowledging cleavages on a group level, which would be continued over the next two decades.

The initial research saw three major factors to voting behaviour: Personal identification with one of the political parties, concern with issues of national government policy and personal attraction to the presidential candidates. Later, their analysis saw that party identification and attachment was the most common factor. [1] Furthermore, according to the model, this party attachment is generally stable, formulated by outside social influences, including parents, family members and others in one's sociological spectrum. [2] Two sets of data were used in the model's construction. The 1964 and 1968 national, cross-sectional survey of the presidential election. They were designed as representative samples of those, with private households, voting in the US. [1] However, in recent years, the model has been challenged by spatial and valence models, forcing proponents to reconsider the long term implications of party attachment. In some ways the Michigan model and spatial model are opposite ends of the spectrum, with the Michigan model arguing voting is purely partisan and the spatial model arguing voting is based on ideological proximity to the candidates. In spatial voting theories there is no role for partisanship in voting. [3] Furthermore, critics claim that the Michigan model exaggerates the assumption that party identification is cemented by circumstances, but rather that party identification can change in light of a party's performance or other circumstances. The model is only applicable to American "winner-take-all" systems, as lack of choice contributes to small chances for Partisan ID to change. The model most famously appeared in The American Voter.

The funnel of causality:

The model relies heavily on early attachment to parties, through the funnel of causality. This shows long term effects such as: Sociological Characteristics (Race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation), Social Status Characteristics (Social class & Occupation), and Parental Characteristics (Values and Partisanship). These factors go on to create party Identification which is largely static within individual voters. And it is through an individual's partisan identification that short term choices, such as Candidate Evaluation and Issue Perceptions are created.

Related Research Articles

A political spectrum is a system to characterize and classify different political positions in relation to one another. These positions sit upon one or more geometric axes that represent independent political dimensions. The expressions political compass and political map are used to refer to the political spectrum as well, especially to popular two-dimensional models of it.

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. 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.

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.

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

Bipartisanship, sometimes referred to as nonpartisanship, is a political situation, usually in the context of a two-party system, in which opposing political parties find common ground through compromise. In multi-partisan electoral systems or in situations where multiple parties work together, it is called multipartisanship. Partisanship is the antonym, where an individual or political party adheres only to its interests without compromise.

<i>The American Voter</i> 1960 book on political partisanship

The American Voter, published in 1960, is a seminal study of voting behavior in the United States, authored by Angus Campbell, Philip Converse, Warren Miller, and Donald E. Stokes, colleagues at the University of Michigan. Among its controversial conclusions, based on one of the first comprehensive studies of election survey data, is that most voters cast their ballots primarily on the basis of partisan identification, and that independent voters are actually the least involved in and attentive to politics. This theory of voter choice became known as the Michigan Model. It was later extended to the United Kingdom by David Butler and Donald Stokes in Political change in Britain.

Dealignment, in political science, is a trend or process whereby a large portion of the electorate abandons its previous partisan affiliation, without developing a new one to replace it. It is contrasted with political realignment.

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.

A partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is used for persons who strongly support their party's policies and are reluctant to compromise with political opponents.

Party identification refers to the political party with which an individual identifies. Party identification is affiliation with a political party. Party identification is typically determined by the political party that an individual most commonly supports.

In American politics, straight-ticket voting or straight-party voting refers to the practice of voting for every candidate that a political party has on a general election ballot. The term can also refer to a straight-ticket voting option, sometimes known as a master lever, that allows voters to check a box and vote for all of a party's candidates, instead of voting for each race individually.

Alan Ira Abramowitz is an American political scientist and author, known for his research and writings on American politics, elections in the United States, and political parties in the United States.

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.

Networks in electoral behavior, as a part of political science, refers to the relevance of networks in forming citizens’ voting behavior at parliamentary, presidential or local elections. There are several theories emphasizing different factors which may shape citizens' voting behavior. Many influential theories ignore the possible influence of individuals' networks in forming vote choices and focus mainly on the effects of own political attitudes – such as party loyalties or party identification developed in childhood proposed by the Michigan model, or on the influence of rational calculations about the political parties’ ideological positions as proposed by spatial and valence theories. These theories offer models of electoral behavior in which individuals are not analyzed within their social networks and environments. In a more general context, some authors warn that the hypothesis testing done mainly based on sample surveys and focused on individuals’ attributes without looking at relational data seems to be a poor methodological instrument. However, models emphasizing the influence of individuals’ social networks in shaping their electoral choices have been also present in the literature from the very beginning.

Voting behavior is a form of electoral behavior. Understanding voters' behavior can explain how and why decisions were made either by public decision-makers, which has been a central concern for political scientists, or by the electorate. To interpret voting behavior both political science and psychology expertise were necessary and therefore the field of political psychology emerged including electoral psychology. Political psychology researchers study ways in which affective influence may help voters make more informed voting choices, with some proposing that affect may explain how the electorate makes informed political choices in spite of low overall levels of political attentiveness and sophistication. Conversely, Bruter and Harrison suggest that electoral psychology encompasses the ways in which personality, memory, emotions, and other psychological factors affect citizens' electoral experience and behavior.

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.

Negative partisanship is the tendency of some voters to form their political opinions primarily in opposition to political parties they dislike. Whereas traditional partisanship involves supporting the policy positions of one's own party, its negative counterpart in turn means opposing those positions of a disliked party. It has been claimed to be the cause of severe polarization in American politics. It has also been studied in the Canadian context, as well as in Australia and New Zealand. Cross-national studies indicate that negative partisanship undermines public satisfaction with democracy, which threatens democratic stability. Traditional partisans, on the other hand, are more likely to support their country's democracy, which promotes democratic stability.

<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.

In social choice theory, the spatial model of voting is used to simulate the behavior of voters in an election, either to explain voter behavior, or to estimate the likelihood of desirable or undesirable outcomes under different voting systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1828 Indiana gubernatorial election</span> Indiana gubernatorial election

The 1828 Indiana gubernatorial election took place on August 4, 1828 under the provisions of the Constitution of Indiana. It was the fifth gubernatorial election in the State of Indiana. James B. Ray, the incumbent governor, was re-elected, defeating Israel T. Canby, the former state senator representing Jefferson and Jennings counties, and Harbin H. Moore, the outgoing speaker of the Indiana House of Representatives, in a three-way race. The election took place concurrently with races for lieutenant governor and members of the Indiana General Assembly.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Knoke, D. (1974). "A Causal Synthesis of Sociological and Psychological Models of American Voting Behavior". Social Forces. 53 (1): 92–101. doi:10.2307/2576841.
  2. 1 2 Gillian Peele (2004). Governing the UK: British politics in the 21st century (4th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. p.  325. ISBN   978-0-631-22681-9 . Retrieved 28 August 2011.
  3. Jessee, S. A. (2012). Ideology and Spatial Voting in American Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.