Voter Motivation and Voter Turnout
 |
| Voting in Iraq |
Voter motivation which is an act of pulling electors to a
cause from a micro to a macro level so they can cast their votes still remains an
essential factor in contemporary democratic elections. Understanding the
philosophy of voter motivation to garner victory can be a vital tool and a way
of triumphing over political opponents. In present-day American elections, parties
compete to attract as many voters as they can by using all sorts of tactics at
their disposal. Cases of voters turned away for failing to furnish birth
certificates, identity cards, and other documents demanded by officials manning
election stations in various parts of the U.S, pop up in the media now and then
to arouse public opinion. Turning away eligible voters challenges the concept
of direct democratic participation. Election irregularities are common in
almost every democracy mainly due to humankind’s irrationality and hostile
responses become part of the ordinary citizens’ ways of voicing political discontent.
Some form of racial prejudice surfaced among black and white voters in the
presidential election of 2008 when the Republican Party fielded political heavyweight
John McCain against the youthful politician and challenger Barack Obama of the
Democratic Party such that former president Jimmy Carter, in the glare of the
media, came in support of Obama (Paine et al, 2010).
One tactical measure to enhance voter turnout would be encouraging
voters to come to the polling stations to cast their ballots. Libertarian
paternalism is famous for its self-conscious influencing application that is known
as “Nudge” where attempts are made to move people to a certain direction that elevates
their living standards without promises of economic incentives attached. In
such cases, what is essential for the voter is not concern for party
arrangements but concern for policy results (Kedar, 2005). Another important
means would be boosting voter education so that people can have understanding
of how the electoral systems work. Broad experimental literature is available that
document how the ordinary American citizen is ignorant of the policies and the politicians
that shape the nation. According to Kaplan (2008), though not an aberration,
the number of Americans having significant knowledge of politics is alarmingly low
and below the level required for an advanced democracy such as the U.S.
Political science scholars, borrowing a leaf from the
application of bargaining theory, often cite the need for the allocation of
distributable goods and resources and the examination of institutional designs
as factors that alter voter behavior (Kedar, 2005). To the contrary, other
political scientists reference proximity theory which is voter endorsement of
the candidate sharing similar political views. Regardless of which theory is
right, one major aspect that voters put into consideration when voting for a
particular candidate, is the state of the economy. According to Hudson (2010), creating
better voting procedures has been shown to increase voter turnout. People often
vote according to their social and economic statuses. Improved voter turnout
can be realized through civic engagement and through empowering citizens to
have a say in political discourses. A reduction in adherence to class prejudice
and lessening all sorts of barriers that restrict voter involvement should be
top priorities for congressional leaders if they are to receive the trust and
support of their constituents. Advancing mobile and internet democracy could
also be used to eliminate political misconceptions and allow for the retention
of diminishing party loyalty.
References
Caplan, B. (2008). Majorities against utility: Implications
of the failure of the Miracle of Aggregation. Department of Economics, Center
for Study of Public Choice, and Mercatus
Center : Fairfax ,
VA : George
Mason University
Kedar, O. (2005). How voters work around institutions:
Policy balancing in staggered elections. Electoral Studies, Ann
Arbor : University
of Michigan
Payne, B.K., Krosnick, J.S., Pasek, J., Lelkes, Akhtar, O.
& Tompson, T. (2010). Implicit and explicit prejudice in the 2008 American
presidential election. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46,
367–374.
No comments:
Post a Comment