Voting behaviour

Voting behaviour is the study of how people vote and the reasons behind this. Political scientists and psychologists have attempted to explain patterns in voting behaviour by using different ‘models’, but most ‘models’ have similar elements – they simply emphasise a specific element. Both long term and short term factors affect voting behaviour. Long term factors can include social background, whereas short term factors can include which party leader they prefer at the time of the election.

Primacy and recency approaches

The primacy approach or model highlights factors linked to social divisions such as:

• Age
• Gender
• Ethnicity
• Class

If one were to accept this model it would be clear that voting behaviour would be ‘stable’ as the above social factors change very slowly. Therefore, although short term factors may influence people they are not important enough to counteract the social factors that shape a person’s political ideas.

The opposing approach is the recency model which suggests that voting behaviour is unpredictable and that partisan de-alignment have reduced peoples’ loyalty to a particular party. Therefore short term factors such as recent events, issues, leaders are more important. This highlights the large number of voters who vote for different parties, and undecided voters who decide very late in an election campaign.

Stability and volatility

If voting behaviour is deemed ‘stable’ then the long-term factors that affect voting behaviour must be more important as they change slowly over time. Whereas is voting behaviour is deemed ‘volatile’ then short term factors and events must be important as they are less predictable.

Voting behaviour in by-elections

One instance in which volatile voting behaviour is often seen is in by-elections. This is partly due to a much higher likelihood of protest voting, but also due to the heightened media focus on a single election, as opposed to the national picture. The ‘swing’ in by-elections is often impressive, however many seats ‘swing back’ in a general election when the election is held in a different context.

Tactical voting

This is when a voter does not vote for the party they would like to win, but votes in such a way as to keep a party they dislike out of power. For example, Liberal Democrat voters may vote Labour in order to prevent the Conservatives from winning (if the voter voted Liberal Democrat, Labour would have less votes, and would therefore be less likely to beat the Conservatives).

Protest Voting

This is when a small percentage of the electorate uses their vote as a protest. For example in 2005 many traditional Labour voters switched to vote Liberal Democrat in protest at Blair’s invasion of Iraq. Protest voters tend to vote for third parties or extremist parties, for example the BNP.

Swing voting

A swing voter is identified as a voter who has no set allegiance to a political party and therefore their decisions are unpredictable. The decisions of swing voters can therefore ‘swing’ an election one way or another. They are also often called floating voters who do not vote consistently for a particular political party.

Models of voting behaviour

Introduction

Political scientists have suggested a plethora of ‘models’ that help to explain voting behaviour. Whilst they all have clear strengths, they are not mutually exclusive (i.e. the factors identified as important in one model, can also be emphasised in another model). For example, the social structures model may identify how an individual is placed on the political spectrum, but the voting context model may help explain tactical or protest voting.

Social structures model

This model links social cleavages such as class, but also age, gender, race, religion etc. as having an impact on voter behaviour.

In the past political scientists identified a gender gap of women being more likely to vote Conservative, perhaps due to traditional female roles, however this appears to have closed. In 2015, women were slightly more likely to vote Labour and less likely to vote UKIP. Most notably, younger women had the biggest swing to Labour of any group, while older women had a small swing back to the Conservatives.  The two groups are almost exact opposites of each other: Labour has a 20 point lead among women aged 18-24, while the Conservatives have an 18 point lead among women over 55.

Ethnicity is another indicator of potential voter behaviour, when in 2005 13 of the 15 ethnic minority MPs were members of the Labour party and c.70% of Asian voters and c.80% of black voters have historically supported the Labour party. In the 2010 General Election, 68% of BME voters supported the Labour Party, compared to 16% supporting the Conservatives, and 14% supporting the Liberal Democrats. One million votes from black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities helped put David Cameron back into Downing Street, according to new research into attitudes among minority voters. Labour remains well ahead with BAME voters on 52%, finds research by the think tank British Future, but the gap between the two main parties is shrinking dramatically, especially among Asian voters. One-third (33%) of BAME voters supported the Conservatives in 2015, its best result so far. The Liberal Democrats and the Green party each took 5% of the BAME vote, with 2% voting for UKIP. Based on an estimated 3 million BAME voters taking part in the election, the results equate to the Conservatives securing a million BAME votes for the first time in the party’s history– while Labour achieved 1.6m. The Lib Dems and Greens both gained about 150,000 votes from this group, with UKIP on 60,000 and the SNP on 40,000.

Social class political alignment was at its height in the 1950s and 1960s with the majority of voters voting for the party affiliated to their social class (for example, the working class were likely to vote Labour, and the middle class was likely to vote conservative). Since then many political scientists have identified a trend in social dealignment where voters are now not as likely to vote for the party affiliated with their class. Political scientists have offered several explanations for this;

• Embourgeoisement – working class people feeling more middle class (possibly due to changes in lifestyle, occupations and material possessions)
• Deferential voters – working class voters who vote for the Conservatives as they appear the natural party of government and leadership
• Emergence of a new working class – the change in occupations from industrial sector to commercial and service sector have produced a group that do not vote in the way the old (and more unionised) working class did

Party identification model

Party identification or ‘partisan alignment’ refers to the political party with which an individual identifies. Party Identification is loyalty to a political party. Party identification is typically determined by the political party that an individual most commonly supports (by voting or other means). Party identification has been strong in the past when in the 1950s 90% of voters identified with either the Labour or Conservative party. In 1997 this was 74% with up to 11 million voters changing their minds. Identifying with a political party is known to increase significantly the likelihood of voting for that party at election time. Traditionally party identification was rooted in social class (Butler and Stokes, 1969). At the same time the Labour and Conservative parties took distinct positions on issues, mirroring their class-based support. As class self-identifications have changed and parties have reached out to non-core voters, we see a decline in partisanship and the power this once held when voting. In 1983 only 8% of voters did not identify with a political party compared to 21% in 2012. In 1983 87% of voters identified with a political party, down to 78% in 2012.

Rational choice model

In the rational choice model voters analyse the political parties’ manifestos, leaders and current issues and make a rational choice as to which party they will vote for. Voters may also examine past performance of political parties (most notably, the record of the current government) or their perceived competence in the future when determining how to vote.

Dominant ideology model

This model focuses on the Ideology shared by most people in society, a dominant class. The dominant class is the class in society who have a set of common values and beliefs shared by most people in a given society. This shows how the majority think about a range of topics.

THE DOMINANT IDEOLOGY IS THE IDEOLOGY OF THE DOMINANT CLASS.

Dunleavy and Husbands (1985) argued that each individual’s choices are influenced by the media. They thought that the media misinterpreted and distort the political communication process in the newspapers and on TV.

The media has a heavy influence on how and who the general public vote for. The press bias is a great example of media influence.  Different newspapers and television stations have the ability to limit the amount of coverage the give a particular political party.

People tend to buy the same newspaper regularly, often for reasons other than its political stance. But they will be influenced by its editorial opinions. Outside election times, most readers will not realise that the Daily Record favours the Labour Party and that the Daily Mail favours the Conservative Party.

The media can edit and change what is really trying to be said by the political parties to the viewer/voters.  This many influence the voters to change their votes or to vote for the party that the media supports. The absentness of tradition also mean means that voters are easily swayed by the media, meaning undecided voters can be influences and the dominant class as well.

Voting context model

This model takes into account the context of the election that is being held (for example factors such as the importance of the level of government the election is for and the voting system that is being used). In this model it is assumed that voting behaviour is dependent on the level of government the elections are being held for – e.g. if a voter has a low opinion of local government, then they may be unlikely to vote at all or vote tactically, or even cast a protest vote. In theory, under the PR system in European elections a LibDem voter will vote LibDem, yet in a local or general election they may vote tactically due to the nature of FPTP.