Voter Turnout in 2020

          The equation for voter turnout is often expressed as: R = PB + D – C. R is the reward from voting, and if R is greater than 0 then it would be a rational decision to vote. PB is the probability that the vote is significant in that it breaks a tie. D stands for the duty one feels to vote, and C stands for the costs of voting. There has been no doubt that voter turnout has increased, shown in the figure below. There could be a variety of factors that influence this growth. Perhaps the increase is due to more social groups being given the ability to vote as voting extended beyond land owning white males. Perhaps it is due to the easy accessibility to voting centers, which therefore reduces the cost of voting. While these may be valid reasons, I believe that one significant factor influencing voter turnout is actually the increased polarization between the American parties.

Wikipedia

Washington Post

          As shown in the figure above, polarization is increasing between the Democrats and Republicans. It would appear that there was a brief relief of polarization around the times of the World Wars. This would be expected as war can unite nations as easily as it divides them. However, since the 1950s the American political parties have continually become more polarized to the point that they are more polarized then they have ever been in history. This polarization creates a vicious competition between candidates and an increased sense of partisanship that result in a large voter turnout. Due to the high level of partisanship revolving between the Trump supporting republicans and Trump opposing democrats, the voter turnout for the 2020 election will be the highest numbers yet.

            Competition between candidates can contribute to the increased voter turnout. Elections that have the prospect of high competition can lead candidates to pursue different methods to gain more votes. They will most likely campaign more, make more public appearances through participation in question and answers, forums, and debates. The easily accessible information these efforts create reduces the cost of voters having to go out of their way to find information about candidates. Increased competition between candidates creates intense debates, even among candidates of the same party (a good example being the recent Democratic debate in Nevada. If a candidate is able to hold their position well in these debates then voters feel more confident standing behind that candidate. They feel an increase of partisan support towards the candidate and an increased dislike of the opposing party. This increased partisanship can also lead to an increase in voter turnout.

            John Aldrich modifies the voter turnout equation by implementing his own variable, D in his book Why Parties: the Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. The modified equation is: R = PB + B + D – C. According to Aldrich, B represents the benefits of the candidate winning. I would argue that the emotional satisfaction of your party or candidate winning over another would be included in the B variable. Imagine an election with high competitions where all candidates have ripped into one another, and imagine the satisfaction of your chosen candidate being elected over all the others after this long process. There would no doubt be a strong partisan pride towards your party, while the “losing” side might experience a strong partisan pride towards their party out of distaste of the elections.

            The level of competition of the 2020 election is still in debate as the Democratic party is still trying to whittle their vast number of candidates down. However, already there is a high level of polarization in the nation in regards to the support of Donald Trump. It would seem that feelings towards President Trump tend to lean to the extremes. Either people, generally Republicans, love the President or people, generally Democrats, hate the President. This enormous polarization in regards to just the President himself would suggest the biggest voter turnout in history. The emotional benefit for the Republicans if President Trump were re-elected would be just as equal to the emotional benefit for the Democrats if President Trump was not re-elected. In response to each voter seeking that emotional benefit of their vote, more will be willing to vote. It would seem that at this time where the parties are the most polarized will spur the most voters in history.

Sources:

https://learningsuite.byu.edu/plugins/Upload/fileDownload.php?fileId=e787f710-xi3s-sc8Z-Gpk5-dX18358269ab

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/09/polarization-is-getting-worse-in-every-part-of-politics/

Taking Action on the Collective Action Problem

Every four years the collective action problem resurfaces as America prepares for the next  presidential election. In 2016 writer Brad Plumer shared these 3 reasons for voter apathy and its contribution to the collective action problem: 

1.     Voter registration is often harder in the United States 

2.     Many Americans simply don’t think voting matters

3.     America’s particular political institutions may depress turnout

So what does this mean for the United States? If we turn to John H. Aldrich’s Why Parties? We can evaluate times attempt at managing the dilemma of collective action. During the 19^th century, the introduction of new parties such as the Democratic, the Whig, and Republican were all swings at gaining more votes. The purpose behind creating a party according to Aldrich was to, “Rather than relating primarily to the “natural aristocracy” and the national government they led, the new parties were rooted in the masses, seeking to win their support , mobilize it on election day, thereby win office, and with all that, control the spoils of office such victories could bring the party” (page 98). The new parties came with power in numbers, which was a large part of their success. 

The next question to ask is how does this apply to todays politics? The solution during President Jackson’s time was to create new parties, but how would this work in todays society? According to Micah L. Sifry of the New Republic, “it took three things to create a party back then: people, money, and ballots” this short list of only three items does not necessarily infer that it would be easy to introduce a new political party and have it be successful. Sifry goes on to add that “That’s no longer possible: Today, third parties can’t mount their own presidential bids after they learn whom the two major parties have nominated—there simply isn’t enough time between the end of primary season and the general election to gain meaningful ballot access in enough states to win an Electoral College victory” (Sifry, 2018). The possibility of a third party hasn’t proved strong, but the introduction of a party isn’t necessarily the only solution. The effect that parties have on a society when they accomplish what they are designed to is astounding, and a large part of that effect is making the people feel heard. When asked why he doesn’t vote, interviewee Carl Yaffe answered, “ I don’t vote because the winners of most races I’m eligible to vote in are predetermined, due to gerrymandering, the electoral college and the overall heavy political imbalance of the state. (I tell people from elsewhere that Maryland leans so far to the left that even our crabs are blue.) In reality, I have no more say in who my congressional representative or my U.S. senators will be than my neighbors in D.C. have in choosing theirs. Voting in such a system is not only a waste of time; it also perpetuates a system of anti-democratic elections” (Coward Mitra, 2018). A large portion of the collective action comes from Plumer’s second suggestion- many Americans simply don’t think that voting matters.

   It seems that history has repeated itself, and many voters today feel that the power lies in the hands of the wealthier class. Not only does the questioning of the electoral college lower voter rates, it creates an “us vs. them” mentality towards politicians. This same feeling is what contributed to the collective action problem of the 1800’s. Historical solutions from the past have been both the introduction of political parties and the benefits that come with them, these benefits include mobilization, a well known identity, and what was suggested by the national Democratic during the 19^thcentury, “Take our popular leader and no controversial policies. We will provide resources to you, so long as you agree to call yourself Democrats. For your part, you can continue to hold to your current policy positions” (page 124). Is it possible that these same ideas could challenge the voting problems of today? Plumer suggests going door to door and having politicians meet citizens in person, consider making voting mandatory for all citizens, and even mentions, “Note that in 19^th-century America, when turnout was much higher, elections had much more of a festive, whiskey-soaked atmosphere. The idea presumably, is that throwing a giant party cal help cement cultural norms around voting” (Plumer, 2016). Aldrich also addresses these parties and the success they brought to parties and politicians when it came to voting. Maybe one big party is the solution to the collective action problem after all! 

https://learningsuite.byu.edu/plugins/Upload/fileDownload.php?fileId=e787f710-xi3s-sc8Z-Gpk5-dX18358269ab

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/americans-will-head-to-the-polls-in-a-week-heres-why-some-wont/2018/10/30/58ff25ea-db95-11e8-b732-3c72cbf131f2_story.html

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/7/13536198/election-day-americans-vote

https://newrepublic.com/article/146884/america-stuck-two-parties

Identity Politics & the 2020 Election

Identity Politics & the 2020 Election 

One only needs to watch the news, listen to a radio show, or read an article for a few minutes before coming across the terms “identity politics”.  The Merriam Webster dictionary defines identity politics as: “politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns…”.  However, politics scientists Mason and Wronski claim that “all politics is identity politics”. 

Politicians using emphasizing specific aspects of their identity to appeal to different groups of voters is hardly a new phenomenon.  Candidates often try to draw on underlying parts of voters’ identities and make them more salient.  When an identity becomes more salient it becomes more important to the voter and is more likely to impact how that voter makes their decision on election day.  If a candidate can make a certain identity more salient and then align him or herself with that identity, the voter will be more likely to support that candidate.                         

The Democratic primary debate in January of this year was a great example of candidates trying to emphasize and align with particular identities in order to win over more voters.  For example, when asked why he is the most qualified to be commander-in-chief, Pete Buttigieg explicitly drew on his identity as a veteran saying, “There are enlisted people that I served with…”.  Here Buttigieg is telling all other veterans that he understands and shares their experiences and is therefore the most qualified candidate to meet their needs. 

Elizabeth Warren followed suit by highlighting her identity as a woman.  In response to whether or not she thought a woman could win the general election Warren stated, “So can a woman beat Donald Trump? Look at the men on this stage. Collectively, they have lost ten elections. The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women. The only person on this stage who has beaten an incumbent Republican anytime in the past 30 years is me”.  With this statement Warren created a clear in-group of women and out-group of men.  She tried appeal to all women in the United States, particularly women who have felt ignored by American politics thus far.  She is making it clear that not only is she a woman, but she will fight for the interests of all other women in America and therefore all women should vote for her since she is the candidate looking out for them. 

Every other Democratic candidate on the debate stage attempted to make certain identities more salient as well, focusing on identities each believed would win them more voters.  Biden focused on more moderate Democrats, highlighting his ability to work across the aisle and collaborate with Republicans.  Sanders held to his pattern of speaking out against the “one-percent”, aligning himself with all other non-billionaires while Steyer focused on business owners and Klobuchar reached out to people living in rural areas.

 None of this is surprising given that these candidates are vying for the primary vote and need to win over as much of the Democratic camp as possible if they want the party’s nomination.  What is somewhat surprising is President Trump’s use of identity politics.  Identity politics is a political buzzword usually associated with the Democratic party.  However, political scientists have found that Republican voters are more susceptible to this form of campaigning and therefore Republican candidates may actually be more likely to appeal to specific identities than Democrats.  This is due to the relative hegemony of the Republican party.  When Democratic candidates use identity politics it is often very visible because the Democratic party is made up of many different groups of people.  However since a large majority of Republican voters are similar to one another, candidates can draw on the mass identity of a white, less educated male and align themselves with a large portion of the Republican base.  This phenomenon is apparent in President Trump’s campaign rhetoric.  Trump often tries to emphasize his identity as a white Christian male to try to make Republican voters see Trump as one of their own and in turn support him. 

There is much debate over the implications of identity politics.  While some argue that all politics is identity politics and always has been others fear it is a newer, dangerous trend.  It is easy to see why separating people by various identities can lead to factions and in an increasingly polarized political climate some have argued candidates should be looking for ways to unify rather than divide.  Regardless of the effects of identity politics, it is clear the identities voters hold have a strong impact on how they vote on election day.  Therefore it is likely both Democratic and Republican candidates will continue to play the identity politics game as they seek after the presidency in 2020. 

Sources

 “CNN's Democratic Presidential Debate”.  CNN Transcripts. January 14, 2020.

Mason, Lilianna and Julie Wronski.  “One Tribe to Bind Them All: How our Social Group Attachments Strengthen Partisanship”.  Advantages in Political Psychology.  Vol 39: 257-277 (2018).

Scherer, Michael.  “White Identity Politics Drives Trump, and the Republican Party Under Him”.  The Washington Post.  July 16, 2019.

The State of the Union and Interest Group Politics 
Joseph Lewis

            A lot of interesting events and drama happened during President Trump’s State of the Union Address on February 4, 2020. From President Trump not shaking Nancy Pelosi’s hand at the beginning, to a Presidential Medal of Freedom being awarded to Rush Limbaugh in the middle of his speech, to Pelosi ripping apart her copy of the address at the end of President Trump’s remarks, the evening was a roller coaster full of unexpected turns. One comment that news analysts have made about the speech was that it was “overtly campaign-oriented” (Politico) and “heavy on reelection themes” (CNN). I definitely caught on to that when I was watching the speech. President Trump covered a lot of ground in his speech. Some of the topics he included in his speech were the economy, military, immigration, healthcare, the opioid epidemic, unemployment rates, and education. He focused on improvements in these areas during his presidency. Why was President Trump’s speech so campaign-oriented according to analysts? One possible explanation is that while he is seeking reelection, he is appealing to his interest groups that are within the categories he talked about to show how he has worked in their fields of interest.

            According to Bawn et al., “parties in the United States are best understood as coalitions of interest groups and activists seeking to capture and use government for their particular goals…” (Bawn et al., 571). To accomplish their goals, interest groups invest in politicians who will carry out their goals. According to these authors, candidates have to rely on interest groups because they are the ones who will back them up financially and create networks for them to succeed. Candidates can succeed when they are backed by multiple groups as illustrated in their allegory of the shepherds and teachers (Bawn, 573). Most of these interest groups relate to the current issues that we face as Americans in politics today, such as healthcare, education, or immigration.    

            President Trump specifically talked about a lot of issues to appeal to interest groups that have backed him in the past and attract new interest groups to support him. For example, he spent some time talking about the immigration issue and how he is continuing to advocate for a wall on the Mexican border. He talked about how some American citizens were killed by illegal immigrants and how ICE and the border wall need to be supported to protect the lives of our own people (Fox News). There are interest groups that have supported President Trump in the past about border control, like the National Border Control Council (Washington Times). While pushing forward on immigration policies, he is showing the immigration interest groups that he is staying true to the policies he talked about in the past.

            Another point that Bawn et al. focused on was the “electoral blind spot” (Bawn, 577). In this blind spot, candidates can have a little more flexibility in their policies and positions because of how inattentive voters are. However, if they take extreme positions, the voters will notice and resist the policies that the candidate advocates. If they stay in the blind spot, voters will just follow the general political masses. Because of this, interest groups can have more of a role in influencing policy. They pay attention to the hundreds of pieces that get put into a bill and start discussions surrounding the issues. Because of this, politicians would need to address these issues, even if it is not a major part of their platform. 

            One example of this in President Trump’s address concerning the opioid epidemic. President Trump has not focused on the opioid epidemic too much in the past. But he dedicated a portion of his speech to work towards stopping the epidemic (Fox News). President Trump addressed this as well as other health concerns due to the pressures that interest groups and politicians have pushed. He wants to appeal to groups across the spectrum in order to gain more support. His positions on the opioid epidemic are not extreme, so voters across the spectrum could support him in this instance. It isn't a major factor that could drive people away. Interest groups would take more of an interest in what President Trump wants to do, so they could support him in his crusade against opioids. 

            So are interest groups the only reason why President Trump was so campaign-focused in various topics? It probably isn’t. There are many factors that go into why politicians talk about the issues they interact with. However, it is a lens that we can analyze his words and actions during his speech and try to interpret the intent behind them. 

Sources: 

Bawn, Kathleen, Martin Cohen, David Karol, Seth Masket, Hans Noel, and John Zaller. "A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Party Demands and Nominations in American Politics." Perspectives on Politics vol. 10, no. 3. Sept 2012. Accessed February 20, 2020.

https://learningsuite.byu.edu/plugins/Upload/fileDownload.php?fileId=c8adbb4d-OQz4-Z2Lo-YxzN-L5060ce8ba9c.

Harris, John F. "The Strangest State of the Union Ever." Politico. February 5, 2020. Accessed February 20, 2020. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/05/trump-sotu-analysis-110803. 

Howell, Kellan. "National Border Patrol Council Endorses Donald Trump." Washington Times. March 30, 2016. Accessed February 20, 2020. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/30/national-border-patrol-council-endorses-donald-tru/. 
Trump, Donald. "State of the Union 2020: Read Trump's Complete Prepared Remarks." Fox News February 4, 2020. Accessed February 20, 2020.  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/state-of-the-union-2020-read-president-trumps-complete-prepared-remarks
Wagner, Meg. "State of the Union 2020: 4 Moments from Trump's State of the Union Speech." CNN. February 5, 2020. Accessed February 20, 2020. https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/state-of-the-union-2020/index.html.

Why New Factions Have Risen

The political elites of both parties have been able to control their party’s presidential nominees for nearly 50 years. They have used their financial resource as well as their media connections to ensure that the candidates they supported won their parties nomination. The candidates they typically supported were moderate and chosen because they would not upset the status quo. In 2016 the established political elite for the Republican party failed at electing a moderate and instead controversial Donald Trump was chosen as the nominee. Despite many of the established backed candidates spending more money and having more endorsements, Donald Trump was able to still clinch the nomination. Many famous republicans publicly claimed that Donald Trump was harmful to the republican party, but even this failed to stop Donald Trump. In 2020 the political elite in the Democratic party are struggling to get a moderate candidate they back elected. Bernie Sanders is the clear front runner to win the Democratic nomination for president, but he is disliked by most of the established Democratic Party. They view him as to radical and has been criticized by famous democrats such as Hilary Clinton. Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have been able to defeat the established political elite who have had power in the party for decades. They have been able to do this through strengthening ignored factions in the party through new media. Donald Trump appealed to a faction of the Republican party that felt ignored by the traditional party elite, but through the power of social media Trump could contact these voters directly. The rise of social media has allowed candidates to bypass traditional media who may alter the candidate’s message and directly contact their base. Bernie Sanders has used social media to activate a more liberal faction of the democratic party who have felt oppressed by the democratic elites. Technology that allows for candidates to directly contact voters has led to the traditional party factions losing power and new more radical factions gaining that power.

              In 2010 Koger, Masket, and Howell published “Cooperative Party Factions in America” which analyzes how factions in political parties share information with one another. Their findings demonstrate that political parties do not share information with other political parties, but the factions inside of political parties are willing to share information with one another. The data that the authors presents also demonstrates that there are factions in each party that are more central to the sharing of information than others. In the Democratic party the more central factions are the major party committee’s which dominate the information sharing. The more liberal factions such as the New Yorker are still involved in information sharing, but they aren’t as central as the more traditional parts of the party. For the Republican party the factions that dominate information sharing are the national committee and the national review both factions are moderate. The more socially conservative factions such as the Citizen Leader Coalition are not very involved in information sharing within the party. Factions inside the political parties are willing to share information, but the established and traditional factions’ control most of the information sharing.

              This article demonstrates that dominant factions inside of political parties tended to be more traditional and more moderate. It also demonstrates that there are more ideologically extreme factions that are being exclude from the party by the more traditional factions. These are factions that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders appeal to who have developed a resentment towards the traditional elites. Both politicians have been able to bypass traditional media and reached out directly to these factions using social media. These factions have increased their political involvement and become major factions in the party they belong to. This can be demonstrated through analyzing the factions in the Republican party. The National Review used to be the center of the Republican party information sharing and one of most powerful factions in the party. However, currently they are one of the few factions that still oppose Donald Trump and have failed to change with the new Republican party. With new technology candidates that are not supported by the established factions of the party are able to bypass the establishment and reach out directly to their supporters. This has shifted the power in each party as more traditional factions lose power and are replaced by outside factions that have been activated through more radical candidates.

Sources:

https://learningsuite.byu.edu/plugins/Upload/fileDownload.php?fileId=4cba80eb-JAtb-tFoN-PXRR-qK8333278609

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/democratic-party-2020-broken/606547/

Opposing Identities in a Polarized Nation

In today’s polarizing, divisive world of politics, it is easy to sense the tension between
Democrats and Republicans. Indeed, one study found that 82% of Republicans support
Trump, compared with only 6% of Democrats. Figures like Trump have fueled division
in America between conservatives and liberals and sparked battle between political parties.

Although populist leaders and ideological battles have polarized the country, a more
subtle division is happening among individuals. Each of us identify with many groups.
We may be part of a church congregation, have a favorite hobby, live in the city, or
work in a particular industry. These identities may become tied to politics; white
evangelicals and gun owners join the Republicans, intercity African Americans and
union workers join the Democrats. Many people have multiple identities on both sides
of the aisle, which makes them moderate and gives them different positions depending
upon the issue. This sharing of identities, called cross-cutting cleavages, has been a
hallmark of American democracy in the past. 

However, today there is strong societal pressure to pick one side or the other and
minimize any cross-cutting cleavages. When society demonizes the other party, it becomes
nearly impossible to identify with groups on both sides of the spectrum. Those who have
claims to both sides of the aisle struggle to find their identity, and more and more they stop
identifying with their party and claim they are Independent. 

This identity tension is seen plainly for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints. In 2014, Pew Research reported that 70% of Latter-day Saints were affiliated with
the Republican party. Over the last several decades, the Republican party has gained a
reputation as the party for religious freedom, self reliance, and conservative social values.
It was easy for Latter-day Saints to feel at home in the Republican party. 

But in 2016, the Republican party underwent a realignment. Suddenly, immigration was a
top priority with a focus on radical efforts to stop refugees. It was no longer meaningful if
a politician had a good character or strong morality. There is little focus on women’s rights.
These changes went directly against teachings of the LDS Church. In 2014, the General
Relief Society started a hashtag titled #IWasAStranger and encouraged members of the
Church to reach out to immigrants and refugees in need. LDS people are taught to show
great respect to the Constitution. Based on Book of Mormon teachings, LDS members are
taught to avoid wicked leaders and choose those who follow their conscience. Support for
women leaders has grown in the Church, especially with the growing number of sister
missionaries and the roles given to women leaders in local congregations. Increasingly,
church teachings are at odds with political identity. This tension is reflected in Republican
support among LDS members. Although approval for Trump among LDS men has stayed at
62%, approval of Trump among LDS women has fallen to 51%. More and more, members of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints feel that they no longer can support the party
membership.

The clearest example of this change in party identity was the vote by LDS senator
Mitt Romney to remove Trump from office. Romney harshly criticized Trump and often
claimed that Trump was not truly a conservative. In fact, Romney declared that he was
“more conservative than Trump” when it came to immigration. Romney is not arguing that
he is more radical than Trump, but rather that Trump left the original conservative position
and realigned the party. Although every other member of the House and the Senate would
not betray their own party, it appears that Romney thinks Trump to be an imposter in the
Republican party. Romney wants the old Republican party that used to align with his values.
Romney justified his impeachment vote by heavily referencing the Constitution and talking
about his moral duty to make honest judgements. These claims are strongly influenced by
Romney’s religion and show a distinct tension between Romney’s religious identity and his
partisanship.

Since the LDS Church no longer fits easily into the Republican party, will members
abandon the party and become Democrats? Although some individuals have chosen
this path, it appears unlikely that this change will occur. First, partisanship is very sticky.
People often associate with the party their parents associated with, and it can take a
generation for a family to redefine its values and identify with a new party. If the change
in Republican values remains permanent, it will still take several years for members of
the LDS church to change their affiliations. Second, while the LDS Church shares some
values with the Democrats, including being pro-immigration, supportive of women’s
rights, and helping the poor, the Church differs strongly from the Democrats in their lack
of support for drug legalization, opposition to abortion, and the focus on self reliance.
In order to join the Democrats, many LDS Republicans will have to stomach supporting
positions they have consistently opposed. Unless Democrats create more room in their
party for social conservatism, it is unlikely that the LDS Church will identify strongly
with this party. In the short term, it appears that members of the LDS Church will continue
to be dissatisfied with the Republican party and struggle with opposing identities.