Category: Elections

Introduction

During the medieval times, the monarchy was the most common form of government. Under this setting, all the political power was vested in the King or Queen. It is the King or Queen who made all critical decisions that affected the social, political and economic aspects of his/her subjected. However, the citizens who were ruled under this form of government did not have the right to select a leader of their choice as power was vested within the leading family and passed from one generation to the next.

Thus, this form of government did not respect the rights of its subject. Monarch did not also embrace the concept of equality as the gap between the rich and the poor was very wide. It is as a result of these injustices amongst others that individuals started to protest against this form of rule since the Renaissance Period hence leading to the adoption and implementation of democracy in many states all around the world.

Unlike under monarchism, democracy gives all eligible citizens an equal opportunity to make decisions that will affect their lives collectively as a given community or state. With democracy, citizens can participate directly or indirectly in the process of developing, creating, and amending the laws, policies, and regulations that will govern them.

Consequently, eligible citizens have the right to choose their leaders. This right gives them the opportunity to exercise the practice of political self-determination. Therefore, through democracy, citizens have the opportunity to elect leaders who they believe will result in economic, social, and political growth in their respective nations.

From a plain view, democracy seems to be the solution to the political problems that have been affecting many states in the world. However, there have been instances reports of protests by citizens as a result of several political reasons. First, for the democratic process to achieve the desired results, it needs to be free and fair.

However, most electoral processes in the world have been characterized with irregularities such as rigging, fraud, intimidation, violence and so on. This makes the process not to be free and fair. Therefore, the leaders who hold power after such elections are usually unpopular. This usually forces citizens to protest the outcomes of such elections in a bid to embrace equality and fairness within their nations. Consequently, the election process might be successful and the leader who has public support is elected into office.

However, such a government might fail to meet the demands and expectations of their electorates hence resulting in protests to put them out of office. With regards to all these facts, this paper will try to determine that citizens’ protests play a critical role in influencing election outcomes. To support this hypothesis, the paper will critically analyze political protests that have been experienced in the world and the effects that they have had on the politics of a given nation. To achieve this, this paper will focus on protests in Russia, Peru, and Egypt.

Protests in Peru and Its Effects

Presidential elections all around the world have always been characterized with a lot of controversies. In the year 2000, for example, Peru held national elections. The main race was between the reigning president, Alberto Fujimori and Alejandro Toledo (Anderson 91). These elections were regarded as the most fraudulent in Peruvian political history.

The elections were characterized with high levels bribery, unconstitutionality, rigging, unfair balloting, and other forms of electoral fraud. Due to these factors, Toledo rejected the results of the first elections. Consequently, he pulled out of the second elections as a result of the same factors. During this round, he requested the electoral commission to postpone the elections in a bid to solve the irregularities that were being experienced. Consequently, Toledo urged his supported to boycott the elections (NDI 28).

However, according to the Peruvian laws, all eligible voters are expected to take part in the electoral process. The failure to this might result in individuals being fined. Due to this fact, Toledo urged his supported to take part in the electoral process but to cast in spoilt votes. Most of his supporters took this advice as the number of spoilt votes in the second round increased from 2.25% in the first round to over 29% in the second round (NDI 29).

After the second round of election, wide spread demonstrations were experienced in Peru. The outcome of the elections had split Peru into two. There were those individuals who did not concur with the election results, hence they were fighting for elections legitimacy since they believed that they had been deprived their right to genuine elections.

These individuals were mainly the supporters of Toledo. On the other hand, there were those individuals who were satisfied with the results. These individuals protested to support the fact that Fujimori had won the elections in a free and fair manner.

The fact that there were other citizens and the international community questioned the credibility of the election results was an issue of concern to them. As a result, the post election environment in Peru was highly polarized (NDI 29). To regain peace and stability in the nation, it was necessary for the government, with the assistance of the international community and local organization to come up with reforms and institutional means that would address the needs of the citizens of Peru.

On 28^th June 2000, Alberto Fujimori was inaugurated as the president of Peru. At this time, Alejandro Toledo under the umbrella of Democratic Forces organized several marches in Peru during the weeks that followed the inauguration. Marcha De Lo Cuarto Suyos that was held in Lima, Peru’s capital was the biggest and most successful march that was organized by the group. The aim of this march was to restore democracy in the nation.

The protestors accused the government of threatening and bribing opposition deputies and other officials to change their political affiliation and join Fujimori’s Peru 2000 party, the fact that the armed forces recognized Fujimori as president and supported his actions and decisions, the irregularities of the first and second round elections and the reluctance of the government to put stringent measures to ensure that the process was free and fair, and the use of excessive force against protestors (NDI 30).

Approximately over 100,000 people took part in the march. The pressure from the protests within and outside the government forced Fujimori to call for new elections. However, in his statement, he stated that he would not be a candidate. In November 2000, Fujimori resigned as president while he was in Japan. However, the Congress failed to acknowledge his resignation and voted him out of office.

Protests in Egypt and its Effects

Under the reign of Hosni Mubarak, the electoral process in Egypt was highly questionable. During the 1987, 1993, and 1999 elections, President Mubarak called for general elections as a means of showing his subjects and the international community that the nation respects and exercise democracy.

However, unlike in the electoral process of other democracies where the presidential race has two or more candidates, in Egyptian elections, Mubarak ran alone for office without any contenders (Bolme et al. 9). It is in 2005 that the Egypt experienced its first contested presidential elections.

However, Mubarak won by gathering over 88% of the total votes that were cast. Despite these fact, several allegations which termed the process as not free and fair were put in place leading to protests. First, several political parties boycotted the elections on the grounds that the process would not be free and fair.

The institutional frameworks that had been put in place to govern the entire process were all in favor of NDP (Mubarak’s party). Consequently, the Muslim Brotherhood was barred by the government from competing in the elections on the grounds that it was an illegal group. The Muslim Brotherhood believed that it was the most popular party and had a lot of support from the public.

On the other hand, the public responded to the elections by failing to turn up to the polling stations. The 2005 elections thus had a low turnout. Consequently, the runner up of the 2005 elections, Ayman Nour was arrested while in parliament depriving him his rights to parliamentary immunity (Department of State 45). All these factors undermined the credibility of a free and fair election in Egypt and the legitimacy of Mubarak’s victory and government.

However, in 2011, Egypt experienced massive protests from the public. These protests were collectively referred to as The Egyptian Revolution of 2011 (Bolme et al. 4). The main aim of this revolution was to bring Hosni Mubarak’s reign as the president of Egypt to an end.

The protests were non-violent and were characterized by civil disobedience, mass demonstrations, job boycotts, and marches. The protests were carried out by individuals of different backgrounds, religions, and social class. Despite the peaceful nature of the protests, there were frequent collisions between protestors and security forces. As a result, approximately 700 people lost their lives and over 6,000 others were injured.

Other than fighting to bring to an end the reign of Hosni Mubarak as the president of Egypt, the protestors also wanted the state of emergency laws to be lifted.

These laws had increased police brutality within the nation, disrupted the presence of free and fair elections, and increased corruption. From an economic point of view, the state of emergency laws had increased the level of unemployment and increased the level of inflation that resulted in the rise in the cost of food and other basic commodities. Thus, the protestors wanted justice to prevail in Egypt.

They also wanted the power to be transferred to a non-responsive military until free and fair elections were held. Most importantly, they wanted to have a say and be involved in the process of decision making with regards to the management of natural resources within the nation.

During these protests, Cairo was regarded as a war zone as a result of the conflict that ensued between protestors and the government forces. At the same time, the government was facing pressure from labor unions that called for nationwide strikes and from the international community in the form of sanctions.

Responding to these pressures, Mubarak dissolved his government and appointed Omar Suleiman, the General Intelligence Director as the Vice President and announced that he was not planning to take part in the September 2011 elections.

With Suleiman’s leadership, Mubarak asked him to form a new government. On the other hand, the opposition was represented by Mohammed ElBaradei who had popular support from the public. ElBaradei played a critical role in negotiating with the transitional government. In early February 2011, Mubarak resigned as president.

Egypt was ruled by the military under the directions from the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) for six months until the elections could be held. During this time, the constitution was suspended and the parliament was dissolved. The Prime Minister was in charge of the government until a new one was formed. In May 2011, Mubarak was tried for predetermined murder of protestors. In June 2012, he was found guilty of the allegations that were presented against him and sentenced to life (Smelser 25).

On May 2011, the first round of the presidential elections was held. The second round of the elections was held in June 2011. On June 24^th 2011, the electoral commission announced that Mohamed Morsi had won the elections. Morsi was inaugurated on June 30^th 2011 as the fifth president of Egypt. Being an influential figure of the Muslim Brotherhood, Morsi was the first Islamist to be the president of Egypt (Smelser 34).

The people of Egypt were optimistic that Morsi government would meet their needs of freedom, justice, and economic, political, and social growth. However, since SCAF nullified the constitution, after coming to power Morsi’s government drafted a new constitution that was passed by the Constituent Assembly on November 30^th 2012 for a referendum that is to be held on 15^th December 2012.

The proposed constitution limits the power of the president and increases the power of the parliament (Smelser 42). The constitution has also eliminated civilian torture and detention and gives all individuals a fair trial. However, the constitution has failed to bring an end the trial of civilians by the military.

Consequently, it has also failed to protect the freedom of expression, speech, and religion. As a result, the public has regarded the constitution as a tool that would deprive them their rights and freedoms. To some extent, the constitution has been viewed as an instrument of transforming Egypt into an Islamists state (Rubin 11). It is as a result of this fact that people of other beliefs and religions feel that the proposed constitution will affect their lifestyles.

The old constitution of Egypt was based on Sharia laws. However, the extent to which these laws have been adopted and implemented in the new constitution are higher. Article 219 of the new constitutions proposes that Sharia laws will originate from the four Sunni schools of thought (Manukyan 84). This in turn eliminates any influence that might arise from reformists. Therefore, with the new constitution, Egypt might turn into a Sharia state hence infringing the rights and freedoms of individuals who profess other beliefs or religions.

During Mubarak’s reign, it was difficult for Christians to build churches or other houses of worship. During the Egyptian revolution of 2011, a lot of churches were destroyed. Thus, with the new constitution, it will be even harder for Christians or members of other religious groups to repair such buildings, leave alone building new ones. Therefore, the new constitution of Egypt clearly deprives Non-Muslims and Secular individuals.

As a result, Egypt has been experiencing massive protests over since 30^th November 2012. Thousands of people have been marching around the Presidential Palace, with some camping there as a means of airing their grievances. The media have also protested against the infringement of the freedom of expression. On 4^th December 2012, eleven newspapers stopped their publication activities for the entire day. On 5^th December 2012, several private TV stations stopped airing their services (Manukyan 84).

Consequently, there have been protests and marches in major cities in Egypt. The protestors are using slogans and chants that were used during the Egyptian Revolution to kick Hosni Mubarak out of office. The protestors are now questioning the legitimacy of Morsi’s victory in the presidential elections that were held in September 2011.

Moreover, they are also questioning the legitimacy of his government on the grounds of delivering justice and respecting the freedoms and rights of the people of Egypt. With the proposed new constitution, Morsi has lost the public support that he had. At the same time, they are fighting for a change of government, as Morsi has failed to turn out to be the president they hoped for.

Protests in Russia and its Effects

Russia has always been a nation that has been renowned by the skepticism and distrust that it has on democracy. This is mainly caused by the political apathy that the nation has as a result of its Soviet mentality, a concept that has been passed on from one generation to the next (Quatrone 722).

The political scene of Russia has always been characterized by low levels of competition. As a result, the legitimacy of its democracy has always been questioned. The major political figures of Russia during the 21^st century are Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin. Putin is the current president of Russia.

However, prior to his current term, he had served as the president of Russia between the year 2000 and 2008. Medvedev on the other was the president of Russia between 2008 and 2012. At the present moment, he is the Prime Minister of Russia. With this political view, it is evident that power within the nation revolves around a few individuals. From a critical point of view, it is evident that Russia lacks political figures that could compete with Vladimir.

Some political analysts suggest that Medvedev only became president due to the constitutional requirements that brought his term as the president of Russia to an end. However, after careful considerations and planning, it emerged that Putin gave his power to Medvedev, an individual who would not act independently as a president.

During his reign as president, Medvedev had different political, social, and economic ideologies as compared to Putin. His political strategies mainly focus on specific people within the Russian community. These were intellectuals, businessmen, and educated individuals within the nation.

His goal main ambition was to transform Russia into a pro-liberal and pro-modern state where democracy was embraced and the rights and freedoms of every individual within the society was respected. Medvedev presented himself as an intellect, who respected democracy and the welfare of the people of Russia. Being a graduate of St. Petersburg University and a holder of a PhD in Law, Medvedev was regarded as an European-minded politician who was fighting for liberal reforms in Russia.

On the other hand, Putin criticized Medvedev regime. During this period (2008-2011), Putin presented himself as a brutal politician, as a man of actions and not words. His speeches were highly sarcastic and abusive. With these tactics, however, he managed to gather the support of a specific group within the Russian population; the Soviets.

Putin always associated himself with the working class. Putin frequently visits factories and workshops where the low income earners work in Russia. With his encouragement and strong advice, he manages to boost their morale hence improving their performance (Olimpieva 10).

With their differences, it was expected that Medvedev would run against Putin in the 2011 elections in Russia. Given their ideologies and the public support that they both had, the 2011 elections were expected to be the most competitive elections in Russia (Olimpieva 10). Despite all this, on 24^th September 2011, Medvedev announced that Putin will become the leader of Russia.

This announcement made people realize that the two had staged their differences for over three years. Their power sharing deal had been planned for years. Eventually, Putin announced that he would be the presidential candidate for United Russia in the March 2012 elections. At the same time, Medvedev announced that he would run for parliamentary elections.

In reaction to this, massive protests were experienced in Russia, especially in its capital, Moscow. During the early stages, small-scale demonstrations occurred in several regions of the nation. However, on 10^th December 2011, Moscow experienced the biggest demonstration since the 1990s (Olimpieva 11). In this demonstration comprised of thousands of protestors. However, unlike previous demonstrations that have been experienced in Russia, this protest comprised of individuals of all ages, class, and backgrounds.

The demonstrations aimed at exposing the political illegitimacy that was present in United Russia under the leadership and support of Putin and Medvedev. On 24^th December 2011, a march named ‘For Fair Elections’ was carried out in Moscow. The main aim of this protest was to ensure that the legislative process in Russia is free and fair.

To achieve this, the demonstrators demanded that all political prisoners in Russia should be released. According to them, these individuals were arrested and jailed without free and fair trials. At the same time, the demonstrators demanded for the annulment of the election results. Consequently, the protestors wanted Vladimir Churov, the head of the electoral commission in Russia to resign from his post.

They also urged the government to put in place and official body that would investigate any election irregularities and fraud during the parliamentary and presidential elections. At the same time, the protestors urged the government to the registration process of opposition political parties to be enhanced. According to the protestors, this process has usually been characterized with a lot of irregularities hence preventing prospective candidates from running for various electoral posts within the nation including the presidency.

Most importantly, the demonstrators wanted the parliamentary and presidential elections to be free and fair. To achieve this, irregularities such as rigging, misreporting of votes, intimidation, ballot staffing electorate manipulation and so on should be eliminated. To achieve this, the demonstrators urged the electoral commission to come up with stringent rules and measures with stiff penalties for individuals who will go against the set rules and regulations.

In February 2012, more protests were experienced in Russia. However, these protests were mixed where some supported the government under United Russia and others going against the government. On February 4^th for instance, a pro-government demonstration was carried out all around Russia (Smith 5).

In Moscow, the anti-orange protest took place. According to the police, this was one of the largest demonstrations to be experienced in the city. Despite the personal grievances that the protestors had with the opposition, they also called for free and fair elections. However, more demonstrations were experienced after Putin won the elections. A day before the inauguration ceremony, over 20,000 demonstrators took to the street.

According to them, the elections experienced a lot of irregularities. As a result, the results of the elections favored Putin. They therefore wanted the inauguration ceremony to be cancelled and fresh elections to be held. In the course of their demonstration, the protesters clashed with the police several times leading to violent encounters where over 400 people were arrested including influential figures such as Alexei Navalany. The next day, over 120 protestors were arrested on the same grounds.

The Russian Government Reaction to Protests

To calm down the situation, draconian laws were enacted in Russia. These laws restricted individuals from protesting by setting strict rules, regulations and penalties that deterred individuals from voting.

Consequently, the police raided the homes and offices of the individuals who organized the demonstrations all around the country. These individuals were arrested, questioned and some were charged with serious offenses (Manukyan 84). Throughout history, the Russian government has been known for its effective repressive tactics.

The government has consistent policies, rules, and regulations that had made the nation to have high levels of repression as compared to other Soviet states and nations from Africa and Latin America (Manukyan 84). As a result, the government has been capable of containing and preventing post-election protests within the nation. The most common tactics that the Russian government has been using to deprive the public from protests and post-election violence include political imprisonment, torture, murder, disappearances, and so on.

These tactics clearly explain why the level of public protest in Russia has been low over the years. Consequently, these tactics give a clear explanation for the presence of low levels of political competition within the state. These tactics have also affected the freedom of expression in the nation. For instance, NTV, a privately owned television company was threatened by the government due to the support and affiliation that it had with opposition figures in Russia (Manukyan 84).

The company’s right to broadcast nationwide as well as its financial support were threatened. Consequently, businessmen and other influential figures have been intimated and threatened by the government through government instigated investigations. As a result, such individuals have been left with no choice but to sanction their support of opposition parties.

Effects of Protests

From the cases that have been presented in this paper, it is evident that citizens’ protests play a critical role in determining the electoral outcome within a given state. The studies that have been conducted reveal that citizens protest as a result of the dissatisfaction that they have with the government hence impacting negatively on their democratic rights.

According to the theory of collective action, individuals who feel that they have been deprived their civil rights and freedoms come together to fight for a regime change through protests to ensure that their social, political, and economic needs are met (Smelser 26). Thus, these individuals form social and political movements and use them as a vessel through which they can air their grievances to the government.

However, for protests to be successful, they need to get the support of powerful and influential individuals, institutions, and/or organizations within and outside their nation. In Peru for instance, Toledo played a critical role in organizing protests that led to the resignation of Fujimori as the president of the nation. The protests played a critical role in spearheading the regime change that led to fresh elections and the formation of a new government.

In Egypt, the 2011 protests brought to an end the reign of Hosni Mubarak and saw the formation of a new government under the leadership of Mohamed Morsi. However, the nation is now questioning his leadership after the congress passed the proposed constitution that would transform the nation into an Islamic state if passed.

Finally, despite the fact that the 2011-2012 protests in Russia did not result in regime change, they played a critical role in the establishment of a strong electoral commission and official investigations of electoral fraud. Therefore, in a democratic nation, citizens will always protest against elections that are not free and fair as a means of fighting for their democratic rights as citizens.

Works Cited

Anderson, Christopher. “Learning to Lose, Election Outcomes, Democratic Experience and Political Protest Potential.” British Journal of Political Sciences, 36.1 (2006): 91-111. Print.

Bolme, Selin, Mujge Kucukkeleş, Ufuk Ulutas, Taha Ozhan, Nuh Yilmaz, Yilmaz Ensaroglu. The Anatomy of Egyptian Revolution: From 25^th of January to the New Constitution. Web.

Department of State. 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Released by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor 8 March 2006. Web.

Manukyan, Alla. Fraudulent Elections, Political Protests, and Regime Transitions. Web.

NDI. Peru Elections 2000. Web.

Olimpieva, Evgenia. “Russia’s Protest Movement: A View from a Young Participant.” Russian Analytical Digest, 108.6 (2012): 10-14. Print.

Quatrone, George. “Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analysis of Political Choice.” American Political Science Review, 82.3 (2012): 719-736. Print.

Rubin, Barry. Egypt’s Proposed Constitution: Creating an Islamist, Sharia State. Web.

Smelser, Neil. The Theory of Collective Behavior. New York: Free Press, 2010. Print.

Smith, Ben. The Russian Crisis and Putin’s Third Term. Web.

Introduction

Voting is mandatory for the democratic process since it is the means through which the voice of the majority is projected. However, for the voting process to be valid, a sizable proportion of the citizens who are eligible for voting should take part in the activity.

Voter turnout rates in America are said to be significantly low when compared to many other democracies in the world in spite of the fact that America is celebrated as a model democracy all over the world. For this reason, various administrations and civil societies have made attempts to increase the voter turnouts in the US.

This paper will carry out a concise, yet informative analysis of voter turnout for three presidential elections. Policies and actions which have positively impacted voter turnout will be highlighted and my view on future voter turnout will be given.

Voter Turnout 1988

Voter turnout statistics

Voter turnout in the US in the 1988 presidential elections was one of the lowest in the American voting history. Herron (1998) declares that at the rate of 50.1%, it was a phenomenally low turnout when compared to American standards.

The 1988 election runoffs were contested by three main candidates who were: George Bush, Michael Dukakis, and Ron Paul. The election was won by George Bush while the second place was taken by Dukakis. While there were many other contestants for the presidential seat, they only managed to achieve trivial vote counts.

Factors Resulting To a Low Voters Turnout

Elections voter turnout was influenced by a number of factors including: social, political, and psychological factors. This fact was true for the 1988 elections where social class dictated the outcomes in a very fundamental way. Statistics indicate that voter turnout was largely influenced by social class of the electorate (Herron, 1998).

86 percent of people with salaries above $75,000 participated in the voting of the presidential election while a significantly lower 52 percent of people with salaries under $15,000 took part in the elections (Herron, 1998). This indicates that social status affects the turnout rate in the elections greatly.

The process of voting and registration are major contributors to voter turnout in any elections. In 1988 presidential elections, the voting process was quite hectic; a factor that kept the electorate away from the polling stations as they were avoiding long queues. The elections schedule, according to Herron (1998), was not properly structured and many people saw the process as time consuming, hence there was a low turnout.

This is because voters’ turnout is dependent on the individuals’ motivation to engage in the activity. Partisanship also had its stake on the effect of the low turnout. Not many people considered the individuals in the race for presidency; rather the focus was on the preferred political party.

Voting model

A careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding the 1988 presidential elections outcomes suggests that prospective model of voting best describes the mode of voting. In this mode, the electorates look forward to effective change from the administration they are voting in. Voting in 1988 was highly influenced by the past performance of the Democratic Party which had previously held office.

Most voters who voted in favor of President Bush were driven by the strong attachment to his party, as well as the need for a change of governance. This was after the decline of the economical growth in the hands of the previous governance.

With his exemplary performance in various high profiled positions he held before becoming a vice president, Bush was a promising candidate. He lost his bid for the senate two times before he was appointed as an ambassador to the United Nations.

From here onwards, his positive performance received public acclaim. While he lost to Ronald Reagan in the campaigns for the republican nomination, he was chosen as a running mate and became the vice president. In 1988 Bush won the republican nomination and easily defeated Michael Dukakis (Herron, 1998).

His past records in the navy and as a torpedo bomber pilot played a major role in his success, as this formed the major judgment scale for candidates. The voting influenced by the expectations of the electorates is a prospective mode of voting.

Demographic patterns

A higher percentage of the male voters favored George Bush’s presidency as it is shown in the public opinion’s archives research chart. However, Bush’s presidency was not highly approved by the black community.

Hibbs (1996) documents that Bush only managed to convince 11 percent of the black voting community to vote for his administration. Dukakis seemed to have a higher influence on the black community as he managed 89 percent of the black’s votes.

President Bush was quite appealing among different age groups as he got an average score across all the age groups. His voters mainly came from the conservative voters with the liberals favoring Michael Dukakis (Roper center, 2004). Even so, the low-income earners did not support Bush but rather showed overwhelming support for Dukakis’s presidency.

Voter Turnout 1996

Voter turnout statistics

The voter turnout in 1996 dropped even further with only 49 percent of the eligible voters participating in the process. Notably, a large percentage of young people did not participate in the voting process.

Former president William Clinton won the poorly participated elections with a 70.4% victory against Robert Dole who only managed 29.6%. The turnout showed a low record with the electorate showing little or no concern about the country’s leadership. The elections were less competitive and did not attract a lot of attention from the media as well.

Factors Resulting into a Low Voters Turnout

Political analysts attributed the low turnout in the presidential elections to the economic growth that have been experienced in the recent years. Hibbs (1996), states that motivation and mobilization (which are the main factors in campaigns) were lacking.

The views of the voters were formed by the results of the previous elections in the year 1992 when George Bush lost his elections bid. Analysts point out that lack of motivation was the result of the economic growth. With a growing economy, people had no reason to be worried about the leadership in place as they had no antagonism about financial well being which is usually the major cause of disappointment in leaders.

George Bush lost of the elections was a result of the decline in the economy performance because people were alert and angered by the difficult financials circumstances. This was the height of a growing disengagement of the American people with their leaders and politics. People were fed up with colossal amounts of money used on extravagant televisions advertisements in the name of campaigns.

Voting model

The electorate in the 1996 presidential elections had no driving force behind the voting and a candidate of choice. The voting was influenced by partisanship since the electorate banked on the past performance of the Democratic Party. Compared to George Bush’s reelection run off, this election did not have any clearly pronounced expectations and led to a low voter turnout.

Situations where voters take part in the process without future expectations, but rather on the basis of past performance, are known as retrospective models of voting. This was the case with the United States of America during the 1996 presidential elections. The elections, as noted above, did not attract a lot of participation as the voters were satisfied with the previous governance hence the democrats easily won them.

Demographic patterns

Bill Clinton won the majority of women’s votes compared to his opponent Bob Dole. This was a significant change compared to George Bush’s victory in 1988 where a majority of women voted for his opponent. The black community also supported the democrat’s governance as did the Hispanic voters. In his reelection bid in 1996, Clinton lost most of the white voters as they drifted in favor of the Republican Party.

Nevertheless, he had a majority following and support from the blacks community who supported the Democratic Party consistently (Alvarez & Nagler, 1996).

The democrats hold their strength in the support from the minority groups like the Jews in religion and the blacks by race. The young generation, as well as the elderly and middle aged voters also favored Clinton. High-income earners also welcomed Clintons reelection bid on the record of his performance in the previous term.

Voter Turnout 2004

Voter turnout statistics

These elections witnessed the highest turnout recorded in the American elections since 1968 (Faler, 2005). This was therefore the best election year with the highest number of voters participating in the processes compared to the past few decades.

This was an impressive turnout considering the low turnout of about 40 percent in the previous elections. George W. Bush won the election with a simple majority of 50.8 percent of the votes. His closest opponent followed him with 48.3 percent.

Factors Resulting To Voters Turnout

A win was marred by controversies which occurred after a while of Bush’s presidency from 2001 to 2009 when he retired from public life. He was closely followed by Al Gore who lost by a very slim margin which led to questions on the legitimacy of the win. Analysts indicate that Bush was the first president to win the elections without the popular vote (Roberts, 2009).

The re-election of President Bush was greatly aided by his military action against terror and commitment to protect the United States. His nomination with the republican was influenced by his rich political background, as well as his input during his father’s campaigns. His vast experience on political issues put him in the best place to run with the party’s ticket for presidency.

President Bush had his greatest support from the older voting generation and the white voters hence the major competition. These elections were very competitive as both the candidates were of the same race. The advantage of President Bush was the drift by the white voters from the liberal Democratic Party to the conservative Republican Party.

Another advantage was his action to woo the minority religious groups to his side. He succeeded and this gave him an upper hand in his election bid. Race issues were also prevalent in some states all through the elections.

The voting was mainly influenced by race and principles with the more conservative party gaining more publicity and following. Turnout was on the rise due to competition and need for change. The drift in favor of the Republican was the evidence that people were looking for change in governance.

Voting model

The 2004 presidential elections in the United States of America was an example of an electoral competition voting model. This is where the parties engaged into competitively wooing the electorate to their advantage.

Parties take advantage of the voters divided according preference to the party’s policies on which one is closer to an alternative of status-quo (Colomen & Llavador, 2008). The case of the 2004 presidential elections presents an analytical potential electoral competition model of voting.

Demographic patterns

Bush got the majority of his votes from male voters although he had his share from the female voters as well. In the race demographic category, he was the favorite of the whites where he scored the highest percentage at 58%. But like noted above, these elections were highly contested and therefore one did not enjoy a big margin in percentage over the other (Wayne, 2011).

Bush’s presidency was highly supported by high income earners at 58 percent as well as religious groups. The conservatives saw the republican administration as their preferred choice compared to the liberal democrats.

Comparison of the Voter Turnout Rates

Elections in the United States have adopted a fairly predictable pattern since 1968. Voter turnout rates have been heavily influenced by the moods of the electorate with dissatisfaction translating to higher participation. It has been established that in all three cases, the financial well being of the citizens played a major role in determining the participation in the voting process.

In all the cases, the level of income of a particular group affected their decisions in whether or not to vote. High income earners have been seen all through the study period to participate more in voting than the low income earners. This may be attributed to the apathy that low income earners feel concerning their ability to initiate favorable change through the ballot box.

Education is another factor that has remained constant in the three case studies. The level of education of a population determines how the voters respond to elections. Education opens the learner’s mind and gives them a broader way of solving and handling issues (Colomen & Llavador, 2008).

With such an understanding, the educated population seems to choose voting with an understanding that it makes a difference. The research has established that the three presidential elections results were largely influenced by the vote from the educated population.

Contrast of the Voter Turnout Rates

In the first case study, in which George, W.H, Bush won, it was an easy win without a great challenge from the opposition. This was because of the dominance in the republican popularity and the conservative political philosophy.

But as we have approached the 21century, a drift has been seen from the conservative dimension to a more liberal political situation hence the transformation from retrospective voting to an electoral competition model. The world has changed and the election habits are changing considering the level of education of the society.

The study has shown the changes that occured in rationale from the year 1988 to the very competitive elections in the year 2004.

Discussion and Conclusion

Lewis-Beck and Stegmaier (2000, p.211) declare that there is a “powerful relationship between the economy and the electorate in democracies the world over”.

People therefore feel that they can impact the economic policies of their country by voting. Considering the economic realities over the last decade, I feel that the voter turnout will increase in the future since people want to install in a president whose economic policies are sound.

An interesting concept that will shape future elections is cyber-campaigning which will see candidates make use of the internet on a larger capacity (Gibson & Stephen, 2002). This will ensure that even the apathetic citizens are involved in the process hence increasing the voter numbers.

This paper analyzes voter trends in the US by looking at three past Presidential Elections. It has been observed that voter rates have significantly increased in the latest election. While voting frequency in the past were on a decline, there has been a recent resurgent in voting interest among Americans.

This can be credited to civil societies and the belief that one’s single vote can make a difference. In my opinion, voting frequency will increase as individual American begin to see the impact they can make through voting.

References

Alvarez, R.M. & Nagler, J. (1996). Economics, entitlements and social issues: voter choice in the 1996 Presidential Election. Party Politics, 3 (2): 22-45.

Colomen, J. M., & Llavador, H. (2008). An agenda-setting model of electoral competition. Party Politics, 9 (1): 47-76.

Gibson, R.K. & Stephen J. (2002). Virtual campaigning: Australian Parties and the internet. Australian Journal of Political Science, 35 (1): 99-122.

Herron, M.C. (1998). The Presidential Election of 1988: low voter turnout and the Defeat of Michael Dukakis. Web.

Hibbs, J.D. (1996). The Economy and the 1996 Presidential Election: Why Clinton Will Win with Probability Exceeding 90%. Web.

Lewis-Beck, M.S., & Stegmaier, M. (2000). Economic determinants of electoral outcomes. Annual Review of Political Science, 3(2): 183–219.

Roberts, D. S. (2009). Why we don’t vote: low voter turnout in U.S. Presidential elections. Web.

Ropercenter. (2004). How Groups Voted in 2004. Web.

Wayne, J.S. (2011). Road to the White House 2012. Boston: Cengage Learning.

Introduction

Recent studies of political attitudes and voting patterns in the United States presidential elections demonstrate that voter loyalties and voting trends have undergone a major shift since the original large-scale voting studies were initiated in the 1940s and 1950s (Guterbock, 1980).

In the American context, the presidential elections are often a hotly contested affair between the traditionally business-oriented Republicans and the labor-oriented Democrats (Gelman, Kenworthy & Su, 2010). However, as suggested by Gonzalez (2012), U.S. presidential elections are won on a number of platforms other than the philosophical leanings of the candidates or party interests.

In this regard, it is important to evaluate the determinants of voting participation in the U.S. presidential elections not only to assist political parties to polish their campaigns during the electioneering period, but also to inform policy decisions at the party level.

While it is a well known fact that most Americans consider themselves as Republican or Democrat, a strand of existing political literature (e.g., Newman, 2001; Pasek et al., 2009; Weisberg, 2007) demonstrates that presidential election results are paradoxically predicated upon a multiplicity of factors other than partisan voting.

While these studies exhibit rekindled interest in the existence of factors outside party identification that are intrinsically involved in determining the results of the presidential election (Holbrook & McClurg, 2005), less attention has been devoted to examining the mechanisms by which these factors activate or deactivate partisanship and mobilize core supporters toward voting for a particular presidential candidate Wildavsky, 2011).

Interestingly, many of these studies tend to deal with individual factors to understand voting patterns in U.S. presidential elections though common practice demonstrates that a number of factors are involved in efforts to shape the voting discourse and trajectory.

The present study aims to fill this research gap by analyzing four possible determinants of voting participation in U.S. presidential elections: media, religion, social economic status and level of education. A comprehensive review of these factors is presented in the subsequent sections.

Available literature demonstrates that the media (print, electronic, Internet) has an agenda-setting capacity or “the ability to influence not what people think, but what they think about” (Newton & Brynin, 2001 p. 225).

This view is reinforced by Gonzalez (2012), who acknowledges that most modern media platforms have the capacity to prime or frame issues in a manner that leads the audience or users to think about them in one way rather than another.

Extending and supporting the work in this nascent area of research, Newman (2001) claims that victory in the U.S. presidential election often goes to the candidate who wages the best marketing campaign using available media platforms not only to make an emotional connection with the people, but also to project an image of honesty, compassion and toughness in the minds and hearts of the American people.

Other scholars note that “both candidates and voters have increased their use of the Internet for political campaigns” (Robertson, Vatrapu & Medina, 2010 p. 11).

Presidential candidates, according to these authors, have adopted many Internet-based tools to communicate with voters, collect contributions, foster community and organize political campaigns, whereas voters have adopted Internet tools to relate to the presidential candidates, engage in political discourse, follow activist causes, and share information.

The relationship between religion and the U.S. presidential elections has been investigated by a number of scholars. In his seminal work on religious identity and the U.S. presidency, Gonzalez (2012) found that “the relationship between religion and the presidency impacts both the viability of candidates and the manner in which decisions are made in the voting booth” (p. 568).

In the 2012 presidential elections, for instance, Republican candidate Mitt Romney suffered considerable stigma from the American voters due to his close association with Mormon religious doctrines (Gonzalez, 2012).

Manza and Brooks (1997) are of the opinion that in the U.S political landscape, religious-oriented cleavages may have been a more fundamental factor for understanding the social roots of voter alignments than the class cleavage owing to the fact that Americans normally claim higher levels of church membership and attendance at religious gatherings and hence are more likely to believe in God and claim that religion is of substantial importance in their lives.

Social economic status has been shown as a possible determinant of voting participation in the U.S. presidential elections. A study by Southwell (2004) shows that unemployed and economically-disadvantaged people are less likely to take part in voting, whereas their employed and rich counterparts derive much satisfaction from participating in presidential elections.

This author further explains that persons experiencing financial difficulties are “less likely to participate in elections because the stressful nature of economic adversity forces a preoccupation with personal economic problems and makes the individual withdraw from political or community matters as a result” (p. 237-238).

Guterbock (1980) used ecological data from the Midwestern city of Middletown to demonstrate that although there is a perceived weakening of the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and electoral choices, a considerable number of eligible Americans continue to vote along class and racial lines.

According to the researcher, wealthy people and those in white-collar occupations continue to vote for Republican candidates to maintain the status quo, while middle class (working class) voters and immigrants vote for Democrat candidates because the policies projected by the Democratic Party are perceived as more responsive to their interests.

Lastly, a number of research studies have investigated the relationship between a voter’s level of education and his or her voting participation in the U.S. presidential elections.

Although the results are not conclusive, Coley and Sum (2012) “reveal a startling stratification at the nation’s polling stations, from a voting rate of 3.5 percent for voting-age high school dropouts to 80.5 percent for well-off, advanced-degree holders between the ages of 55 and 64” (p. 2).

These authors found a significant association between the level of education and civic engagement (e.g., participating in elections), leading to the conclusion that the nation’s less-educated, lower-income eligible voters have willingly disenfranchised themselves form the voting process.

One Canadian study analyzing the last federal election found that “the voting rate among people with a university degree was 78% compared with rates of 60% or lower among those with a high school education or less” (Uppal & LaRochelle-Cote, 2012 para. 12). These figures demonstrate that education may have a ‘positive effect’ on voting patterns not only in the U.S. but also internationally.

The present study is interested in testing the following hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that voters with high media exposure (TV) are more likely to participate in U.S. presidential elections than voters with low media exposure. The second hypothesis is that voters with a solid religious orientation are more likely to determine the outcomes of the U.S. presidential election than voters with a secular orientation.

he third hypothesis is that social economic status is a strong predictor in determining the probability of voting in the U.S. presidential elections. The last hypothesis is that voters with low levels of education are less likely to take part in presidential elections than voters with high levels of education.

Methods

The data for this study were extracted from a larger database known as the General Social Survey (GSS), which is basically a nationwide survey intended to capture the demographic, behavioral and attitudinal views of Americans on a wide range of issues. The GSS is a probability sampling national survey completed through personal questionnaires targeted at non-institutionalized individuals over the age of 18 years.

Information from the GSS official website shows that “the 1972-2012 GSS has 5,545 variables, time-trends for 2,072 variables, and 268 trends having 20+ data points” (General Social Survey, 2013 para. 2). The 1996 data set was used in this study, and the sample size drawn for analysis consisted of 1,419 Americans. Data relevant to the dependent and the independent variables were used to test the hypotheses.

Questions were posed to the participants and the responses entered into the corresponding categories in line with a quantitative approach. However, some items were not operationalized and required the respondents to give their responses in an open-ended manner. These responses were later operationalized by the researcher around underlying themes and then analyzed quantitatively using the IBM SPSS Statistics program.

While the ordinal level of measurement was mostly used when values for the responses represented categories with some intrinsic ranking, the nominal level of measurement was used when values for the responses showed no form of intrinsic ranking, whereas the scale level of measurement was employed when values for the responses represented ordered categories demonstrating a meaningful metric (Balnaves & Caputi, 2001).

For this study, the independent variables include respondent’s highest level of education (measured using ordinal level by ranking participants against the intrinsic categories for educational achievement), TV hours and Internet hours (measured using scale level by stating the number of hours respondents use per day watching TV), respondents income for the last year (measured using ordinal level by entering the respondent’s income for the last year into predetermined intrinsic categories), and belief in life after death (measured using nominal level as a “YES/NO” response).

The dependent variable is whether the respondents voted in the 1996 U.S. presidential election. As already mentioned, the sample size for this study is 1,419.

Quantitative techniques were employed to analyze the data with the view to testing the stated hypotheses. Descriptive statistics (frequency distributions and cross tabulations) were used to demonstrate the frequency of occurrence and the relationships between the dependent and independent variables.

Chi-square tests were also done for purposes of identifying which frequencies and relationships could be considered statistically significant. The results are presented in the following section.

Results

Table 1 shows the cross-tabulation of the number of number of hours per day respondents spent watching TV and if they voted in the 1996 presidential elections. It is imperative to note that over two-thirds (67.9%) of respondents who spent a minimum of two hours per day watching the TV voted against only 118 (25.1%) who spent the same number of hours but did not vote.

Similarly, 205 (67.9%) of respondents who spent 3-5 hours watching the news voted in the 1996 general elections against 23 (27.6%) who spent similar number of hours but did not vote. The Pearson Chi-Square test showed a df of 45 and two-sided significance of 0.290, while the Spearman Correlation Coefficient showed an approximate significance of 0.082.

Consequently, the level of occurrences and relationship is significant enough to prove that voters with high media exposure are more likely to participate in voting than voters with low media exposure.

Table 1: Hours spent watching TV and Participation in 1996 General Elections

Table 2 shows the cross-tabulation of perceptions of belief in life after death (to demonstrate religiosity) and if respondents voted in the 1996 presidential elections. From the cross-tabulation, it is clear that out of 521 valid cases of respondents who voted in the 1996 presidential elections, 449 (86.2%) believed in life after death (religiosity) while only 72 (13.8%) of those who voted said there was no life after death.

The Pearson Chi square and linear-by-linear association showed a weak relationship between the independent and dependent variable (0.003 and 0.004 respectively at 0.05 significance level) but the high occurrence of those who voted in the 1996 election and demonstrated a faith or belief in life after death proves that voters with a solid religious orientation are more likely to determine the outcomes of the U.S. presidential election than voters with a secular orientation.

Table 2: Belief in Life after Death and Participation in the 1996 Presidential Elections

Table 3 demonstrates the cross-tabulation between the social economic status (measured by income for last year) of respondents and if they voted in the 1996 presidential elections.

From the cross-tabulation, it is evident that of the 573 respondents who participated in the 1996 presidential election, 105 (18.3 %) earned a salary of up to $12,999 per year, 341(59.5%) respondents earned between $12,500 and $49,000, and a further 127 (22.2%) earned $50,000 or more per year.

The Pearson Chi-square and linear-by-linear association (both at 0.000 at 0.05 significance level) demonstrated no significant association that could have given credence to the hypothesis in symmetric measures. However, the cross-tabulation analysis proves that social economic status (as measured by respondents’ income for the previous year) is a strong predictor for participation during presidential elections.

Table 3 Respondents Income for Last Year and Participation in 1996 Presidential Election

Table 4 shows the cross-tabulation analysis of the respondents’ highest level of education and participation in the 1996 presidential election.

The Pearson chi-square analysis and linear-by-linear association both demonstrated that there was a significant relationship between level of education and participation in presidential voting (Pearson Chi-square = 103.702, df-6, p =.004; linear-by-linear association = 93.526, df = 1, p = 0.000). The Lambda measure of association revealed a strong association between variables (0.774).

Table 4: Educational Level and Participation in 1996 Presidential Election

The cross-tabulation above demonstrates that out of the 883 respondents who participated in the 1996 presidential voting, 778 (89.2%) had a high school degree and above. This analysis together with the measures of association and significance proves that voters with low levels of education are less likely to take part in presidential elections than voters with high levels of education.

Discussion

The findings of this study demonstrate that media exposure, religion, social economic status and level of education are important determinants of voter participation in the U.S. presidential elections. Consequently, the present study reinforces findings of other studies that have evaluated individuals attributes (variables) and found them to have a significant influence on voting behaviors and patterns.

In this study, media exposure has been found to be positively associated with a high likelihood of participating in presidential elections.

This can be explained in terms of the capacity of media platforms to set the agenda of political campaigns with the view to influencing what the voters think about (Newton & Brynin, 2001), and also in terms media’s capacity to prime or frame political issues in a manner that will lead the audience to see the need for casting their vote on the election day (Gonzalez, 2012).

Through priming and framing of issues in Television channels, candidates are able to not only project an appealing image to the audience, but also create an emotional bond with viewers (Robertson et al., 2010, hence sustaining the audience’ desire to participate in elections.

This study has also demonstrated how religious orientation is critical to informing voter decision to participate in presidential elections.

However, as insinuated by Manza and Brooks (1997) that religious-oriented cleavages may have been a more fundamental factor for understanding the social roots of voter alignments than the class cleavage, the present study found both variables to be equally important in influencing voter participation in U.S. presidential election.

In social class, this study reinforces the findings of other previous studies (e.g., Guterbock, 1980; Southwell, 2004) that economically disadvantaged Americans are less likely to vote than their well-off counterparts.

The level of education has also being shown as a strong predictor to voting participation during the presidential elections, with findings demonstrating that eligible voters who have been unable to graduate from high school are less likely to vote than high school graduates and diploma/degree holders.

Although the voting pattern (3.5% for eligible high school dropouts to 80.5% for well-off, advanced degree holders) demonstrated by Cole and Sum (2012) has not been replicated in this study, the view that uneducated voters are less likely to participate in elections than more educated voters has been well reinforced.

There exist some limitations to the present study. First, the use of secondary data has brought difficulties in operationalizing some variables such as religion. The researcher had to rely on evaluating if respondents believed in life after death to determine their religious orientation.

However, common knowledge demonstrates that not all people who believe in life after death are religious and not all religious people believe in life after death. The case of missing data values also presented a challenge during data analysis. Additionally, it can be said that some of the variables used are limited in scope and therefore could not be relied upon in a rigorous scientific research.

Because presidential elections are a closely contested affair in the United States, it is imperative for policy makers and political players to know the factors that determine the participation of voters in the election.

Knowledge of such determinants (media, social economic status, religion, and level of education) will not only help in prioritizing campaign needs for political parties, but also in ensuring that effective strategies are employed to woo voters to participate in elections.

It should be remembered that presidential candidate Mitt Romney lost considerable number of votes due to poor understanding of religious orientation as an important underpinning in U.S. elections. It is therefore suggested that more research needs to be done to analyze the dynamics of these determinants and how they are played out in party politics.

References

Balnaves, M., & Caputi, P. (2001). Introduction to quantitative research methods: An investigative approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Coley, R. J., & Sum, A. (2012). Fault lines in our democracy: Civic knowledge, voting behavior, and civic engagement in the United States. Web.

Gelman, A., Kenworthy, L., & Su, Y. S. (2010). Income inequality and partisan voting in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 91(5), 1203-1219. Web.

General Social Survey. (2013). Web.

Gonzalez, M. A. (2012). Religion and the US presidency: Politics, the media, and religious identity. Political Theology, 13(5), 565-585.

Guterbock, T. M. (1980). Social class and voting choices in Middletown. Social Forces, 58(4), 1044-1056.

Holbrook, T. M., & McClurg, S. D. (2005). The mobilization of core supporters: Campaigns, turnout, and electoral composition in United States elections. American Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 689-703.

Manza, J., & Brooks, C. (1997). The religious factor in U.S. presidential elections, 1960-1992. AJS, 103(1), 38-81. Web.

Newman, B. I. (2001). An assessment of the 2000 US presidential election: A set of political marketing guidelines. Journal of Public Affairs, 1(3), 210-216.

Newton, K., & Brynin, M. (2001). The national press and party voting in the UK. Political Studies, 49(2), 265-285.

Pasek, J., Tahk, A., Lelkes, Y., Krosnick, J. A., Payne, B. K., Akhter, O., & Tompson, T. (2009). Determinants of turnout and candidate choice in the 2008 U.S. presidential election: Illuminating the impact of racial prejudice and other considerations. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(5), 943-994. Web.

Robertson, S. P., Vatrapu, R. K., & Medina, R. (2010). Off the wall political discourse: Facebook use in the 2008 U.S, presidential election. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age, 15(1/2), 11-31.

Southwell, P. (2004). Economic voting in volatile times. Journal of Political & Military Sociology, 32(2), 237-247.

Uppal, S., & LaRochelle-Cote, S. (2012). Factors associated with voting. Web.

Weisberg, H. F. (2007). The one thing you need to know about voting in American presidential elections. Web.

Wildavsky, A. (2011). Presidential elections: Strategies and structures of American politics. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Introduction

A well-structured election plan might be compared to the process of building a house. While it is possible to construct it without a plan, numerous mistakes will be made, as well as resources and efforts wasted; the same rule applies to a political campaign. Thus, it is essential to determine the overall political situation, strategy, and assets in order to lead the selected candidate to victory on Election Day. Even though the current political landscape is critical, what happens inside the campaign is, in many cases, the most important factor, which makes a difference between winning and losing. This assignment aims to address a campaign message, strategy, and resources for a chosen candidate running for the election for the Governor of Texas.

Candidate

The fictional candidate, John Jackson, is an incumbent officeholder from the Democratic Party. The politician graduated from Stanford and majored in Political Science; he is married and has two children. The media portrays him as a humble, intelligent, and polite family man. During his cadence, the candidate has launched a project, “Rebuild Texas,” which improved infrastructure across the state, including road updates, the expanse of Internet service in rural areas, and re-building private and public educational institutions. Remarkably, the project has created more than 450.000 jobs. Moreover, he reduced the cost of healthcare and supported the creation of the universal healthcare system in Texas. Jackson has also launched a project focused on quality education in colleges and universities across Texas. The state’s economic rates have improved during the candidate’s prior cadence. Furthermore, before the governing position, the candidate has served as the Lieutenant Governor of Texas and a Mayor of El Paso. What is more, the incumbent officeholder was not involved in any scandals. Therefore, Mr. Jackson could be characterized as an experienced politician with a clean reputation.

Campaign Message

Taking into account that John Jackson has a remarkable political experience during his cadence, the campaign must concentrate on his positive reforms, including rising economy, improved infrastructure, healthcare, and increase of jobs. According to Newell, Prindle, and Riddlesberg (2016), “If the economy is good and the candidate is an incumbent (in office), then the strategy will focus on what you have done to improve the economy” (p. 25). Thus, his election message must contain his determination to continue reforms beneficial for state residents. In addition, Mr. Jackson needs to address his willingness to further expand his political changes, for example, on reducing taxes (as it is a current problem). Henceforth, the candidate’s message must include his political achievements and motivation to carry on reforming the state in favor of Texas residents.

Campaign Strategy

It might be possible to consider using the “The Experienced Leader” strategy for Mr. Jackson’s campaign due to his possession of great political experience. As stated by Newell et al. (2016), “the Experienced Leader might appeal to Democrats and Independents, wealthy and middle-class voters” (p. 53). Therefore, the candidate’s strategy should be concentrated on this audience. They are taking into account that during his cadence Mr. Jones not only initiated democracy-oriented projects but also improved the economy and increased jobs; Independents, Democrats, as well as Republicans might vote for him. The main focus should be on college graduates, wealthy and middle-class citizens, not only because the candidate launched a universities-related initiative but also because he is a well-educated man as well. Remarkably, people tend to trust the ones who behave, talk, and possess the same interests as them (Burton, Miller, & Shea, 2015).

Regarding regions, large Democratic cities are the most likely to vote for the candidate (Austin, El Paso, Rio Grande, Houston, Dallas). A small portion of rural state residents might support the candidate; as an outcome, his infrastructural project might have won those people’s trust. The majority of Mr. Jackson’s supporters are women, taking into account that the candidate might be attracted to his personality and appearance (good-looking, intelligent, kind). Additionally, women tend to vote more often, which is another reason for targeting the female population during the election process. The average age of the candidate’s voter is 30-35, as he supports education and enhances the economy. Therefore, the three addressed issues must be about matters for which the audience cares: immigration, education, and healthcare. Respectively, the targeted groups should be women, young professionals with higher education, and big-city residents, as they are concerned with the problems mentioned above.

Campaign Resources

The campaign resources (especially money and time) must specifically be focused on the targeted audience, possible voters. Consequently, the candidate must deliver speeches and publicly appear at places, which his supporters might visit. In Mr. Jackson’s case, it might be universities, educational, and charity events. His audience would cheer for the candidate as he is respected in such places due to his efforts in the spheres of healthcare and education. As the politician has been working on improving healthcare, visits to some medical institutions could also be considered. Due to the young age of his supporters, the candidate needs to be active on popular social media among young generations (Denton, Trent, & Friedenberg, 2019). In terms of financial capacity, Mr. Jackson obtains enough funds for quality advertisement on all the platforms, including social networking sites.

Conclusion

All in all, this assignment provided a concise election campaign plan for John Jackson, a white incumbent officeholder representing the Democratic Party in Texas. It is important to remember that any plan will be as effective during its successful execution. Hence, the above-mentioned strategies, messages, and resources must adapt to constantly changing circumstances; however, they should be measured during prior research.

References

Burton, M., Miller, W. J., & Shea, D. M. (2015). Campaign craft: the strategies, tactics, and art of political campaign management (5^th ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Denton Jr, R. E., Trent, J. S., & Friedenberg, R. V. (2019). Political campaign communication: Principles and practices (9^th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Newell, C., & Prindle, D.F., & Riddlesberg, J.W., Jr. (2016). Texas Politics (13^th edition). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Abstract

This paper looks at the controversy over election or appointment of judges, focusing on Nevada, after consulting with 5 newspaper articles which pointed out the horrific situation in Las Vegas and other parts of Nevada. Other sources were found to examine the arguments for and against the election of judges. It was found that both election and appointment of judges are fraught with problems, but that appointment has fewer dangers of political abuse, especially if the candidates are chosen by an impartial committee and the appointed judges are held accountable for their actions. Popular elections seem to have more problems, and the electorate seldom chooses based upon knowledge. It is not really useful for popular vote to control the one body that really should be non-partisan and objective, our courts.

Discussion

In looking at whether judges in Nevada should be elected or appointed, it is obvious that there are pros and cons on either side. Elections are popular with the people and also with those who would abuse this system. In addition, elections cost money and that must either be provided or the candidates must have some way to raise it. Thirdly, democratic elections require an educated electorate or else they degenerate into a popularity contest, not necessarily based upon reason.

Appointment avoids these pitfalls, but it has its own. Who makes the appointment controls the criteria upon which the appointments are made. The appointer must be unimpeachable and incorruptible. This probably requires that the appointments be made by a group, since it is more likely that a group will be resistant to corruption. However, the public does not see appointment as democratic or sensitive to public needs, so provisions must be made to change this perception. Neither method is foolproof.

The fact that elections for judges are popular with the public suggests that the public will not vote to change this. Many judges would vote for appointment, because they know the problems of this job, like Judge Brent Adams of Washoe County. (Whaley, Sean 2006) Philip S. Pro reminds us of why federal judges are not only appointed, but appointed for a life tenure. “The Federalist, Numbers 51 and 78, stress that permanent judicial tenure was essential to destroy all sense of dependence on the Legislative and Executive branches in making judicial decisions, and to ensure that federal judges would protect the Constitution against inappropriate political encroachments.” (Pro, Philip s. 2008)

He further states that “Judicial independence must, therefore, be viewed, not as an end in itself, but as a means to promote impartial decision making, and to preserve the Constitution against encroachments from the Executive and Legislative branches and from the popular political will of the majority at any given moment in time. Once judicial independence is understood as a means to these ends, it becomes apparent that independence also requires counter balance of accountability, otherwise an unaccountable judge would be free to disregard the goals that judicial independence is supposed to serve.”

What is precisely important in the former statement is that the judiciary must also be protected from the “popular political will of the majority at any given moment in time”. Majority rule is not always fair or logical. Sometimes the majority becomes a mob. Often the majority is less than well informed and vulnerable to emotionally charged and very tricky advertising. The truth is that most elections are won in the fundraising period, because money buys ads.

The horrible abuses cited by the LA Times (Goodman, Michael J. and Rempel, William C., 2006) and supported by the case studies of Gene Porter and Nancy Saitta, actually pale by comparison with some of the cases which are unpublicized, but which hurt people more than financially. One case in point centers around the election of Judge Mills Lane in Reno, Nevada in 1984. He ran on the “no tolerance” platform, especially where it concerns child abuse.

As county prosecutor he was expected to put his effort behind his words. So, when a 13 year old boy (name withheld) was found to have exposed himself and touched a five-year–old child (name withheld) whom his mother was babysitting, the following happened. The two mothers consulted, and the babysitter reported the problem in order to get help under Nevada law.

The boy was moderately retarded, and needed this help. The victim had been mostly just scared. He son was charged and the then prosecutor, Mills Lane, decided he should be tried for attempted rape in adult court to serve as an example. When this happened, the mother of the boy called the mother of the girl in distress. The girl’s mother went with her to court, and made a statement to the judge that she would withdraw her support for this prosecution, explaining that the entire reporting of the incident was done in order to get help for the boy, who was mentally challenged. She warned the judge that if he proceeded, he would have no witnesses, as she would not provide access to her daughter.

The case was dropped and the boy was remanded to child welfare services, which provided the needed services for rehabilitation as desired in the first place. The boy was rehabilitated, and he apologized for scaring his victim two years later, which was accepted by the fully recovered girl. Had this gone as originally designed by Mills Lane in order to promote his candidacy, the lives of both children might have been irreparably damaged. Elections often inspire the candidates to do things they would not otherwise do. In this case, the opportunity to be tough on child molesters was just too tempting. (information acquired from a confidential phone interview with the mother of the victim)

On NBC’s Frontline many arguments have been put forth against election of judges, but this is a hard reality to change. The problems of Texas over the years were cited as “problematic” for George W. Bush’s (then governor) campaign for President. “In this article for the Cato Institute, a libertarian research group, author Robert A. Levy says that “there may be good arguments for merit selection of judges followed by periodic, unopposed retention elections.

But contested elections raise serious questions. They’ve become inordinately expensive, create a perception of impropriety, and may produce judges beholden to deep-pocketed donors with recurring business before the court.”” (CATO Institute, Aug. 13, 2001) This is a possibly modification of election of judges that might help, but it seems like the problems in Nevada are really to extreme for this to work.

In fact, because changing from elected to appointed judges requires a constitutional amendment, it will require a huge and expensive political campaign to make this change, since voters will have to be convinced it is in their best interests. North Carolina funded a review of its system in 1994 and that Commission for the Future of Justice and the Courts in North Carolina recommended to Chief Justice Burley Mitchell that North Carolina begin appointing judges.

Sadly, appointing judges has its own drawbacks. The most troubling is the decision of who does the appointing. It is no less partial to appoint judges if the appointer is not impartial and incorruptible. It is less costly, but the public is not in favor of appointing judges as they see this as taking away some of their historical rights, even if they always just picked a name, since they knew none of the contestants.

One alternative is the Missouri plan: a local lawyer-citizen commission advertises for applicants, selects three, and submits them to the Governor for appointment of one. 27 states follow this plan at the trial level and 23 do not. “We must not forget the drawbacks of appointing judges ….. The Missouri Plan can be guilty of the worst kind of politics – – Bar politics. The public and press never know which lawyers and law firms lobbied for nominees named by the commission, and so it may never know an opposing lawyer in a lawsuit has an inside track with the judge because of his or her firm’s support of the judge before the nominating committee or the governor.” (Ritter, John A. 2008)

Many former judges are in favor of appointment, because the electorate is seldom focused upon the election of judges, since these elections are just part of the general elections, and the electorate is usually ill informed. In Washington State in 2006, many good judges were unseated in the primaries by unknowns proposed by special interest groups. David A. Nichols wrote a column suggesting that this travesty be prevented in future by switching to the less politically vulnerable method of governor appointment of one of a selection offered by a committee. Courts were never intended to decide public policy.

Former superior court judge Nichols wrote, “People cannot expect the courts to write the legislation they could not get their legislators to enact. To elect judicial candidates who patently support one agenda or another sets an extremely dangerous precedent.” (Nichols, David A, 2006)

So there really is no end-all and be-all way to put our judges to work, and to insure their independence, but it seems that appointment is simply less corruptible, even though it depends upon one person or committee. Elections which involve the need for fundraising are certainly too easily abusive of the public trust. However, this is just one more “right” that the electorate is loather to let go. Elections are also very expensive and getting to be more-so all the time. Perhaps a comprehensive plan to use the saved money for the benefit of the electorate might sweeten the pot. Appointing judges is not without its dangers, so care must be taken to hold judges accountable for their actions however they get their jobs.

References

CATO Institute, 2001, in Frontline, Justice for Sale. Web.

Goodman, Michael J. and Rempel, William C., 2006, Los Angeles Times. Web.

Nichols, David A, 2006, Seattle PI,com, Appoint judges to protect system from political interests. Web.

Pro, Philip S. 2008, in Judging the Judges, Justice & Democracy Forum Series.

UNLV Center for Democratic Culture, William S. Boyd School of Law, Evaluating Judicial Talent: Surveying, Ranking, and Promoting Judges. Web.

Ritter, John A. 2008, Who Will Choose the Judges, John A. Ritter.com. Web.

THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT, 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc., PAGE: B4, EDITION: NORTH CAROLINA, SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS. Web.

Whaley, Sean 2006, Las Vegas Review-Journal. Web.

Introduction

America been a developed country takes its action of election in a simpler way than other third world countries. This is because there way of election is done in a different way from that of other countries.

Main body

For the first time in history has America allowed non-American to vote and therefore due to this then the African Americans have been encouraged to participate in future times. This fact of obama asking for votes for the president has drawn many different views in that in the home country people have different views if this man has to succeed. They claim that through this rule in the country then people in the home country will get connections to that country as been that he is not a white but a black then his ruling will give way to the blacks as they will have to get their rights just like the whites.

This is because the African Americans in America have been treated differently from the whites in that in colleges the blacks are offered an education that is different from that of the whites and also in the work place the blacks are not given the best positions eve if one has got high education. This is because there has been a gap between the Africans and the whites from the beginning where by the Africans are seem to do nothing on their own and therefore these people even if one has got high education the job that one has to perform will be of less respectable as compared in the home country.

Through the rule of obama Africans will do what the whites have to do as ling as one is legally in the country and the permits will not be a problem as it is now. Africans have not been given their clear work of how they should go about there stay in that country for example their children a given education that is of less importance this is because their teachers may be of low education and they are given to teach these children therefore it means that the children will come out to be just mere people with education that can not help them to attain their way of living.

The Africans are also faced with abuses like been raped and done all the things that will affect them physically and mentally like for example their children in schools may be raped which leads to that child having a negative attitude towards education and also they have no where to report to get assistance because of the fact that there is no law governing them as Africans. The Africans are also not allowed to have allowances just like the whites this is due to the fact that there is a gap that has existed before and still exists where by the blacks are seen to be useless and

Cannot get the same treatment that is given to the whites. The blacks have been used as the experiments in that if something has to be done in the country they have to take an Africa the thing is that Africans have not been allowed to do anything that is done by the whites. The Africans have been affected by the rap music and other practices in that country due to the fact that they allow the African girls to watch the videos and through this the girls are involved in practices like drinking alcohol, they become sexually active and they are involved in violence, this is due to the fact that the whites have laws that cover them but for the Africans they are not allowed to have any right of their own.

Their girls are mistreated and done all sorts of things due to the rank that is given to them been of low value. Many of the Africans are jobless and therefore they have to seek for better way of survival and therefore they are involved in bad practices. With the leader been an African then there will be changes as the laws for Africans will be imposed and most of the mistreatments will be no more.

Conclusion

Africans have been involved in bad habits due to the fact that they have no law to govern them and therefore through obama then they will be in a better place as they have their rights just like the whites and the young generation for the blacks will be willing to vote for their people.

The current essay deals with crucial issues of media coverage during election campaigns. We put particular emphasis on the analysis of prominent media researchers works such as Thomas Patterson ‘Out of order’, which tackles some important problems concerning the role of Media in American elections and the book of Mazzoleni et al. The Media and Neo-Populism where Perot’s relationship with the press is described in a critical manner.

Patterson is very critical in his description of media coverage of American elections. The main characteristic of media coverage is lie and hypocrisy which though as Patterson claim do not affect genuine democracy to flourish in the United States. As Patterson claims, “the press makes such lies appear to be the norm”.

Media often overestimates the voter’s knowledge of candidates and their political platforms and, in this way, deviate them from the right choice: citizens are not “Aristotles who fill their time studying politics”.

Besides this, Patterson claims that a certain disconnection between reporters and journalists and candidates exists. Their actions are not coordinated, and it has a negative influence on election campaigns coverage and real credos of candidates’ presentation to the electorate. As Patterson claims, “Journalists are the problem here”. The bad image of candidates is often connected with media desire to gain profit from scandal information on their private life etc. Thus, Patterson ties this problem with a general deficiency of the American election system, which results in ‘watch dog’ journalism which in its turn is the product of candidates and media disconnection. These two forces are playing different games, and it results in poor conditions of election coverage. The information provided for the audience is often reduced to mere news without a proper overview of candidates’ platforms and electoral positions.

Patterson proposes his resolution to this electoral and media crisis. According to him, mass media should have responsibilities vis-à-vis electorates which can not be reduced to mere propaganda and news. Therefore, they should effectively cooperate both with civil organizations and political parties. As he notes, “The press is in the news business, and the news is simply not an adequate guide to political choice”.

In Media and Neopopulism, Mazzoleni et al. describe the case of the Ross Perot election campaign and its coverage by the press. Ross Perot was a candidate in the 1992 presidential elections in the United States with a political platform claiming the necessity of protectionism, rising taxes, and solving social issues. Being a billionaire, he hired the best PR specialists and was very successful in media coverage during the first month of the campaign. Perot managed to fill the vacuum of the electoral news while Democrats and Republicans were choosing their candidates on primaries and achieved significant ratings of electorate confidence. But as Mazzoleni et al. claim, it was a sea change in media coverage when the Press increased coverage of his business and personal background. For instance, in many reports, it was claimed that Perot was irritable and had authoritarian management styles. His public statements were also claimed to be rude and insulting to African-Americans. These developments resulted in a significant decrease in Perot’s public approval ratings which finally led to his failure to win presidential elections. This example shows that the role of Media in elections is increasingly important, and it can considerably affect electorate inclinations to vote for a particular candidate. As the authors suggest, it may have both positive and negative effects depending on the information covered by mass media. Hence, our analysis shows that media coverage plays an important but controversial role in elections which is exemplified by our references to Patterson and Mazzoleni et al.’s books.

References

Mazzoleni, Gianpietro, Stewart, Julianne, and Horsfield, Bruce. The Media and Neo-Populism. Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, 2003.

Patterson, Thomas E. Out Of Order. Knopf; 1st ed edition, 1993

The minority groups in the United States of America have been taking part in elections since the 1960s. They have even had a number of presidential candidates, such as Jesse Jackson. However, questions still remain whether or not their participation in the electoral process impacts on the election outcomes. The US is mainly a land of immigrants. In spite of this, it is predominantly a Whiteman’s territory (Traister, 2016). During elections, the whites shape the political space. After 2008 presidential elections, the first non-white president was elected. The election of Barack Obama marked a milestone in the political reality of minorities in the US. The political spectrum in the country changed (Wong, 2015). The campaigns shifted to the growing importance of racial and ethnic minority votes.¹

Minority communities in the United States include African Americans, Indians, Latino-Americans, Asian-Americans, and a horde of other immigrants. During the 2012 election, the voices of the minority groups were heard clearly in the American political landscape. The impacts of these groups on presidential elections were also made apparent. In many instances, politicians use the plight of minorities to gain votes. The issues of immigration, for example, were at the helm of the 2016 campaigns (Traister, 2016). Latinos, as a minority community, has become a group of interest to the average American politician. The rise in their numbers and the voting patterns are slowly changing their political landscape.²

In this paper, the author will focus on Latinos as a minority group in the US presidential elections. The paper will focus on the contributions made by this community on presidential elections. The will also address the motivations behind the choices made by Latinos in the election process. Finally, the paper will highlight such factors as gender and education and their link to national presidential elections in the US.

Minority Groups in the United States and their Voting Patterns: A Case Study of Latino Voters

Some of the well-known minority communities in the United States are African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians. Due to increased immigration, a lot of other communities are also present in the country. During the electoral process, the minority groups are historically known to vote in a particular design. The main reason for this could be the similarities between the socio-economic factors bringing these individuals together.

According to Kim (2014), these communities vote under three critical fundamental issues. The issues include the prevailing socioeconomic status, political participation factors, and cultural considerations. During elections in the United States, the identity of the minority groups is highly politicized. To this end, ethnic identity is linked to political participation. For instance, the 2011 and 2012 reforms on immigration were largely targeted at the minority groups. The reforms were used as a mobilizing effect during elections (Garcia-Rios & Barreto, 2016).³

Since the 1960s, minority communities have been voting as a bloc. Following the 2008 elections, their voting patterns confirmed the group’s allegiance to the Democratic Party as opposed to the Republican Party (Kim, 2014). The passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has seen an increase in the registration of minority voters. Their numbers have been on the rise since then. Other contributing factors to the increased numbers include relaxed regulations with regards to immigration and participation in elections. The original regulations were harsh and mainly targeted minorities (Ford, Bardes, Schmidt, & Shelley, 2015).

For instance, the requirement for a driving license and other identification documents restricted the registration of these communities as voters in the American elections (Bardes, Shelley, & Schmidt, 2013). In particular, the rise in the number of African-American voters during registrations is largely equal to that of the whites (Goldfield, 2014). Such a change can be seen in the 2008 presidential election. During these elections, Barack Obama won with a comfortable margin in both popular and Electoral College votes.⁴

The data provided by the Latino National Election Study has elicited a lot of interest in the Latino votes. Politicians used this avenue to woe their votes. They used political participation and civic engagements to appeal to this group. For instance, in 2012, approximately 11.2 million Latinos voted in the presidential elections. The figure represents 52% of registered Latino voters (Doval & Garza, 2016). A look at the numbers has increased the interest of politicians in civic education among this group.

The aim of this education is to ensure that majority of the Latinos take part in the voting process. The 2016 election provided yet another platform for the Latinos to take part in American mainstream politics. Their numbers were used as collateral to advocate for their needs in society. In spite of the fact that most individuals in this group vote as Democrats, Latinos are still considered swing voters in the country’s presidential election. The reason is that the group, unlike other minority communities, does not necessarily vote as a bloc (Bardes et al., 2013). The individuals choose their leaders on the basis of policies beneficial to them.⁵

It is a fact that the population of the Latino community in the US is large. They are of varied race, nationalities, and tenures. The individuals in this group include those from Central America, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Mexico. The variation dictates the differences in the voting blocs witnessed during elections (Doval & Garza, 2016). According to Adida, Davenport, and McClendon (2016), elections among the Latino community are likened to consciousness voting.

The individuals consider leaders who appeal to their needs. In addition, most of them are attracted to comprehensive policies that are able to address their issues, such as those to do with immigration. Adida et al. (2016) also support the theory that Latinos do not vote on ethnic basis. On the contrary, the sub-groups within the community experience different challenges, which determine their voting decisions. They vote according to the ability of the politicians to appeal to them, especially with regards to those leaders who appear willing to address the issues affecting this community.⁶ As already indicated, such issues include immigration and access to jobs and education.

The Motivations behind Latino’s Voting Designs

Latinos, like most minority groups in the US, are sensitive to the country’s immigration laws. The voters are strongly motivated by factors that directly affect their communities. For instance, the Latinos in Texas are willing to vote for any person appearing to support comprehensive immigration reforms (Sanchez, 2015). It does not matter a lot whether such a person is a Democrat, a Republican, or an independent candidate. The decision on who to vote for emerges when such candidates take clear positions on the issues affecting this community. Apart from immigration issues, the Latino community is also affected by other socioeconomic factors.

To understand their voting designs, it is important to take into consideration their levels of education and income. Other elements determining their voting patterns include age and gender (Leighley & Nagler, 2016). Other factors that motivate Latinos to vote include civil rights, health, and individual wellness (Doval & Garza, 2016).⁷

As of 2012, the total number of Latino voters stood at approximately 23.3 million individuals. Out of this number, 12.1 million people did not vote in the 2012 presidential elections (Doval & Garza, 2016). The swing votes, such as those associated with Latinos and other minority groups, are known to make differences in the country’s presidential elections. According to Seib (2015), in addition to white women voters, Latino voters account for a large number of the swing votes.

To those candidates obsessed with winning, paying more attention and appealing to these unattached votes can make a huge difference in the outcomes of the elections. Because of the large number of Latinos in the US, a number of incentives have been introduced to entice the community to take part in politics. To this end, politicians have become innovative in their hunt for votes. They use all manner of things to appeal to these voters (Doval & Garza, 2016). The targeted number of 12.1 million voters is of significant interest to the political class. The 800,000 newly eligible Latino voters per year should be taken into account when formulating campaign strategies.⁸ Politicians cannot afford to ignore such a huge chunk of votes.

The election of Barack Obama in 2008 was an awakening call to the minority voters in the US. Ever since this election, there has been a motivation to have more representatives from the Hispanic communities. In Texas, for instance, the urge to increase the number of representatives acts as a motivation to the Latino voters. The group believes that most of the issues affecting them can be solved by increasing their representation in the political landscape (Sanchez, 2015).

Another factor that has increased the presence of Latino voters in American politics is their exposure to Spanish-language media. Garcia-Rios and Barreto (2016) add that there is a feeling of immigrant-linked fate among Hispanics. The useful information purveyed in their own language, as well as the increase in media coverage, has further motivated them to take part in elections. The feeling of belonging and the ability to participate in the new homeland politics has also played a part in increased voter turnout (Garcia-Rios & Barreto, 2016).⁹

The Role of Gender and other Socio-Economic Factors in Voting Patterns among Latinos

Minority communities in the US and other countries suffer from a wide array of socio-economic issues. In most cases, gender is viewed as having a direct relationship to the effects of these elements on the lives of the minorities (Carrol & Fox, 2013). Unmarried men and single women are likely to easily change most of their social and economic beliefs. On its part, gender plays a role in the selection of candidates and voting patterns among the electorates. In most cases, the affected gender is the females. Analyses of voter turnouts show that few females show up to vote compared to males.¹⁰ The discrepancies remain even in cases where there are female candidates.

The first electoral office representation for Latinos was in 1989. The first person to be elected was Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who was of Cuban origin (Bejarano, 2014). Since then, the representation of this group in Congress has increased by over 500%. Sharrow, Strolovitch, Heaney, Masket, and Miller (2016) argue that the performance of women candidates in presidential elections is not affected significantly by their sex or that of the voters. On the contrary, the candidacy is influenced by the interaction of partisanship.¹¹ Sharrow et al. (2016) add that the attitudes towards the perceived role of women in the society are what affect their candidacy.

The number of female minorities in politics has been on the rise in the recent past. For instance, in the 108^th Congress, the number of Latino females accounted for 29% of all Latinos in the House. In the 109^th Congress, the figure went up to 15.1% of all members of Congress. There were 7 Latino females, which represented 27% of the membership. Lastly, the 112^th Congress of 2012 also saw an increase in the number of female Latinos (Bejarano, 2014).¹²

Below is a table showing the differences in voting patterns among different Latino communities in relationship to a number of social factors:

Table 1: Participation of Latinos in American presidential elections.

In the table above, the various subgroups of Latinos in America and their participation in American presidential elections is analyzed. The demographic traits taken into consideration include education, income, age, gender, and marital status.¹³ In table 2 below, level of income and its impacts on voting patterns among Latinos is taken into consideration:

Table 2: Participation in elections among Latinos by levels of income and gender.

In tables 1 and 2 above, the factors taken into consideration include education, income, and gender. The factors have significant impacts on voting patterns among minorities. From the tables, it is clear that a rise in income levels increases the number of people turning up to vote. With regards to gender, it is evident that more men take part in the electioneering process compared to women (Leighley & Nagler, 2016).¹⁴

The gender gap has persisted in the American voting design. For instance, female voters have for a long time voted for the Democrats. On the other hand, male voters appear to lean on the side of the Republicans. It is also believed that the voting styles among women differ. To this end, working class female voters are highly attracted to Democrats, while their stay-at-home counterparts for candidates from the Republican Party.¹⁵

The same trend extends to the Latino community. The voting pattern is similarly influenced by gender, where working females and stay-at-home mums among Latinos prefer candidates that are similar to those voted in by their counterparts in the larger American society. The only exception is seen in those states where there are specific political inclinations. For instance, the states of Texas and Florida are predominantly Republican (Bejarano, 2013). Consequently, the women in these states also tend to go for Republican candidates.

The number of single women in America has increased tremendously in the recent past. Statistics show that the size of this population increased by 3.9 million individuals between 2010 and 2014. The rise in the number of single women can be attributed to, among others, the drop in number of marriages taking place in the country. The figures indicate that 14% of women with high school certificate and 10% of those with a Bachelors degree remained single between 2008 and 2010 (Traister, 2016).

Politicians can make use of these numbers as these individuals are normally considered as swing voters. The participation of female voters in elections increases in cases where high profile female officials conduct campaigns and mobilization (Binder, Kogan, Kousser, & Panagopoulos, 2014).¹⁶ Politicians can take advantage of this to shore up the number of female Latinos taking part in elections.

Education is another factor that determines voting patterns among minority groups, Latinos included. The enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 marked the beginning of minority revolution in the country. It led to the abolishment of discrimination against persons on the basis of race, color, and nationality. In addition, the law prohibited arbitrary discrimination against individuals during voter registration. The legislation was followed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The two laws have enhanced civic education in the society. Consequently, participation in the political space among minorities has increased in the recent past. Latinos have wrestled political power from dominant groups in several states in spite of the fact that majority of them lack legal American citizenship.¹⁷ The number has gone up to 5000 elected Latino officials in the US (Bardes et al., 2013).

The gender gap in minority group’s electoral participation is attributed to education, age, and economic status. Other socioeconomic factors, such as marriage, may also contribute to these discrepancies (Ansolabehere & Hersh, 2013).¹⁸ The table below is a reflection of the link between levels of education and participation in elections among Latinos in the US:

Table 3: Participation of Latinos in elections and levels of education.

From the table above, it is evident that level of education has significant impacts on the voting process.¹⁹ An increase in level of education translates to a rise in the number of people who turn out to vote (Leighley & Nagler, 2016). The relationship between the two attributes is similar among the four Latino sub-groups in the US.

Impacts of Latino Voters on Presidential Elections in the United States

As a minority group, Latinos represent one of the fastest growing segments of the US population. Their number has increased by more than 43% between 2000 and 2010 (Bell, 2016). They are regarded as the “majority minority” in the country. In 2014, there were 55 million people who identified as Latinos in the US. The figure represents 17% of the total population in the US (Bell, 2016). During the 2016 elections, 27.3 million eligible voters were of Latino descent.

The figure represented 11.3% of the total number of valid votes. Taking into consideration the voting patterns among this group, it was expected that their turnout to vote will increase by 17% compared to the 2012 presidential election. Large states, such as Colorado and Mexico, have large numbers of swing Latino votes. The reason is that Latinos do not vote as a bloc compared to blacks, non-Hispanics, and whites. Their voting patterns are informed by the policies articulated by the candidates. The various sub-groups have their own issues that need attention from the leaders.²⁰ They choose their leaders on the basis of these issues (Goldfield, 2014).

Historically, Latinos are known to predominantly support candidates from the Democratic Party. However, this notion is changing. States with majority of Latino voters, such as Texas, have seen shifts to the Republican side. The impact of this dynamism on presidential elections entails changes in the number of voters supporting a given candidate. Minority groups are projected to account for more than 50% of electorates by 2040 (Goldfield, 2014). By 2050, the Latinos are projected to be 35% of the US population. The figure is up from 6.5% in 1980. For the American politicians to have Latinos on their side, they should formulate policies and strategies that comprehensively tackle the immigration issues, education, health and other socioeconomic factors affecting the community (Wong, 2015).²¹

During the 2012 presidential elections, 71% of Latinos voted for Barack Obama. The number was a rise from 67% in 2008 (Logan, Darrah, & Oh, 2012). A research conducted by Chu and Posner (2015) shows that states like Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, and Nevada have large populations of Hispanics. However, the voter turnout in these regions is low. The states represent unattached voters that politicians should take advantage of.

However, Chu and Posner (2015) explain that states like Nevada may be more Democrat, while Colorado and Arizona may lean towards the Republicans. In Florida, Latino votes sway during voting and only politicians with appealing policies can hold to them (Chu & Posner, 2015). Another important thing to note with regards to the impacts of the Latino bloc on election outcomes is the ability of the candidates to tackle not just immigration issues, but also poverty, healthcare, and economic growth. Doval and Garza (2016) conclude that the group’s consciousness in relation to people, family, and friends with similar conditions may surpass the unforeseen block that may be associated with ethnic groups.²²

The Effects of Leadership Choices on the Latino Community

The 2014 Latino Victory Project Survey indicates that 37% of these voters participate in elections for various reasons (Chu & Posner, 2015). First, they vote to “support and represent” their group. What this means is that the group requires their community to be represented in national politics. They also seek support for their leaders. In addition, the Latino vote is important to presidential elections given that their choices are not limited to the party candidate (Doval & Garza, 2016).

Latinos have voted for the Democratic Party in every presidential election since 1960. For instance, Bill Clinton got 72% of these votes in 1996. On his part, Barack Obama got 71% in 2012. The most significant beneficiaries from the Republican Party are Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The two received 37% in 1984 and 40% in 2004 respectively.²³

To some extent, the skewed voting pattern has affected the Latino community. The effects of their choices are largely determined by the Republicans. The party has put in place various legislations targeted at minority groups and specifically at Latinos (Adida et al., 2016). For instance, the Republicans used the Three Factors rule to deter the minorities from voting. First, there were regulations that required everyone to have identification documents, including a driving license, in order to vote.

Such regulations were unfriendly to the Latinos. Most Latino families live in poverty and cannot afford cars. Secondly, the issue of absentee voting has also been used to discourage the minorities from taking part in elections. The strict requirements locked out many people from the process. Compared to places where people can email their ballots, absentee voting and such other measures reduce turnout. The third case is the bureaucracy associated with voter registration. Most individuals from highly restricted states where closing dates are early miss on registration. Most of these states are predominantly occupied by minority groups (Logan et al., 2012).²⁴

After the 2012 presidential elections, the loss of Mitt Romney opened another chapter for the Republicans. The party’s national committee commissioned the Growth and National Project to find out the reasons behind the failure. The committee was to analyze the impacts of a number of hitherto ignored voters, such as the Latinos, on election outcomes. One of the recommendations made was to pay close attention to the growing number of Hispanics in the US (Bell, 2016). The party also resolved to abandon the immigrant attitude that was associated with Latinos and other minority groups.²⁵

Significant Changes in Voting Patterns among the Latinos

Latinos have started to identify themselves as US citizens. The reason is the increased representation of this group in national politics. It is also because of the reducing numbers of undocumented citizens in the country. In addition, the involvement of Latino advocacy groups in the affairs of the community has led to changes in the status quo. It is also worth noting that the economic status of the Hispanic community is changing, albeit slightly.

There was a rise in levels of education and a reduction in deportations targeted at this group, especially during the Obama administration (Leighley & Nagler, 2016). However, things may change under Donald Trump given the strict immigration regulations of the new regime. Parties have engaged in serious mobilization of Latino voters. The use of direct mailing campaign is appealing to most people (Binder et al., 2014).²⁶

In spite of the prevailing historical patterns, the Democrats should not sit down and expect the Latino votes to come to them. The pattern is slowly changing and the Republicans are winning the hearts of voters in most Hispanic states. Strategies to win this vote-rich community should be the priority of each party and other politicians interested in winning the American presidential elections (Bell, 2016).

Another reason that makes the Latino votes to shift is their voting patterns. Most of them do not vote en masse. On the contrary, they follow ideologies. The party with the most appealing policies always wins the Latino vote. For politicians to capture this vote bloc, they should understand the changes in their voting designs and come up with strategies to address them in the future (Adida et al., 2016).²⁷

Conclusion

A significant portion of the US population is made up of immigrants. In the recent past, historic demographic shifts have been witnessed. It is projected that the people of color will form the majority of the population by 2044. The trajectory path may seem long, but the effects of these changes in areas like politics are being felt today. The number of people from the minority groups is on the rise. The most significant of this is the sharp increase in the Latino population. The implications of this community in presidential elections were apparent in the election of Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. Studies show an increase in voter turnout among these groups. The effects were also evident in the 2016 presidential elections.

Demographic shifts translate to changes in allegiance to party politics. The Latino community pays attention to, among other things, immigration issues, education, healthcare, and economic growth. Most of these factors shape their political inclinations. As such, politicians should craft policies that are aimed at addressing most of these issues to appeal to this community. The impacts of the Hispanic voters on presidential elections cannot be ignored any longer. Politicians must come up with strategies to encourage a bloc-voting pattern among individuals from this community.

References

Adida, C., Davenport, L., & McClendon, G. (2016). Ethnic cueing across minorities: A survey experiment on candidate evaluation in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(4), 815-836.

Ansolabehere, S., & Hersh, E. (2013). Gender, race, age, and voting: A research note. Politics and Governance, 1(2), 132-137.

Bardes, B., Shelley, M., & Schmidt, S. (2013). American government and politics today: The essentials (17th ed.). New York, NY: Wadsworth Publishing.

Bejarano, C. (2014). The Latina advantage: Gender, race, and political success. Upper-Saddle River, NJ: University of Texas Press.

Bell, A. (2016). The role of the Latino vote in the 2016 elections. Web.

Binder, M., Kogan, V., Kousser, T., & Panagopoulos, C. (2014). Mobilizing Latino voters: The impact of language and co-ethnic policy leadership. American Politics Research, 42(4), 677-699.

Carrol, S., & Fox, R. (Eds.). (2013). Gender and elections: Shaping the future of American politics (3rd ed.). London, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Chu, A., & Posner, C. (2015). How the rising share of Latino voters will impact the 2016 elections. Web.

Doval, C., & Garza, V. (2016). What will it take to awaken the sleeping giant?: Latino issues in the 2016 presidential election. Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy. Web.

Ford, L., Bardes, B., Schmidt, S., & Shelley, M. (2015). American government and politics today (17th ed.). New York, NY: Cengage Learning.

Garcia-Rios, S., & Barreto, M. (2016). Politicized immigrant identity, Spanish-language media, and political mobilization in 2012. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(3), 78-96.

Goldfield, D. (2014). What we can learn about American from the 2012 presidential election. American Studies Journal, 58. Web.

Kim, J. (2014). Minority voting factors. Web.

Leighley, J., & Nagler, J. (2016). Latino electoral participation: Variations on demographics and ethnicity. The Russell Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(3), 148-164.

Logan, J., Darrah, J., & Oh, S. (2012). The impact of race and ethnicity, immigration, and political context on participation in American electoral politics. Social Forces, 90(3). Web.

Sanchez, G. (Ed.). (2015). Latinos and the 2012 election: The new face of the American voter. New York, NY: Michigan State University Press.

Seib, G. (2015). Who will be the swing voters in 2016?. The Wall Street Journal. Web.

Sharrow, E., Strolovitch, D., Heaney, M., Masket, S., & Miller, J. (2016). Gender attitudes, gendered partisanship: Feminism and support for Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton among party activists. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 37(4), 394-416.

Traister, R. (2016). All the single ladies: Unmarried women and the rise of an independent nation. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Wong, J. (2015). The role of born-again identity on the political attitudes of whites, blacks, Latinos, and Asian Americans. Politics and Religion, 8(4), 641-678.

Footnotes

1. The voting patterns of minority groups are quickly changing from the Democrats.
2. Some of the factors affecting minorities besides immigration include education, healthcare, and economic growth.
3. Other minority groups include the Indians and other small communities from Central and South America.
4. The feeling of belonging to the United States by the minority groups has also increased their numbers.
5. The total number of eligible Latino voters is 23.3 million.
6. Latino community undergoes similar situations. The need for solutions can bring different groups together during elections. At this point, it can be considered as bloc voting.
7. The motivation behind voting patterns can also be influenced by the recognition of their impacts on the election process.
8. Latinos are considered swing voters because some do not have political alignments. Others have never participated in elections due to lack of documentation.
9. Civic education and mobilization of the Latino group also enhances their motivation to vote.
10. The statistics show that there are rising numbers of female candidates in the United States. The number is influenced by the change of attitudes among female voters when it comes to their participation in the electoral process.
11. The experiences and performance of female Latino politicians appear to be affected significantly by their gender. This is in spite of the arguments made by Sharrow et al. (2016) and other scholars to the contrary.
12. The representation of Latinos has increased due to increased voter registration that is projected to rise by 17% in the coming elections.
13. The issues affecting this group are not limited to the ones indicated here.
14. Income influences voting patterns. Increased earning leads to a rise in the confidence of voters. This is also believed to correlate with education. It gives the voters more choices and increased exposure.
15. Politicians use such information as gender, profession, and age to formulate their strategies and identify voters that should be targeted.
16. Single women are known to be independent. Their choices are also related to education and income levels. This explains the increase in number of female voters in the recent past.
17. Individuals cannot participate in the American elections if they lack legal identification documents.
18. Increased formal and civic education leads to a rise in the number of voters.
19. Other attributes, such as level of income, compound the relationship further.
20. The Latino voters are projected to reach 35% of the American voters in 2050. The trend can be used to determine their numbers in 2020 when all factors remain constant.
21. The political alignment among Democrats will soon be replaced by party policies within the Latino community.
22. The swing Latino votes are at a vulnerable stage as far as politicians are concerned. The wide array of issues affecting this community can be used by politicians who do not deliver to earn their votes.
23. Political alliances are influenced significantly by the Latinos in their quest for better services.
24. The large number of undocumented Latinos was due to direct sabotage by the Republicans to ensure that their numbers remained low during presidential elections. However, the courts have issued injunctions that put to a halt the regulations passed by the Republicans.
25. The Republicans were forced by the rising numbers to consider their stand on the Latino community. The taskforce was mandated to identify reasons for the party’s failure among these minorities.
26. The national presence of the Latinos is slowly changing due to the increased economic growth.
27. The spread of the Latino community and civic education is changing their voting patterns.

Where

It’s a week now before Canada goes into elections on Tuesday 14^th 2008 to elect their next prime minister. The election takes place after every two years will be her 40^th since she adopted federal form of government

Who

The quest for Prime Minister Post has attracted more contestants this time than previous years. Although the race has attracted a number of contestants, there is a fierce battle between the three main parties which includes; the Conservative party of the sitting prime minister Harper, the New Democratic Party (NDP) lead by Layton and Stephan Deon of Liberal Party.

In less than two weeks time, citizens would know among the three who will be their new prime minister. Each party has tabled its own dreams for the country, with NDP flag bearer promising to create more jobs, “provide good housing, waive or lower some taxes and improve on pension scheme” (Yaffe).

What

Voter whenever they vote, economy is always their main agenda which they expect politicians to address. It is always a wish and hope of every voter that any government that ascends into power would provide a better life than its predecessor. Currently we are experiencing shocks in world stock markets and this poses a big threat to world financial systems as well as economies. As a result many Canadian investors are much worried about the future of their businesses; hence expect the person to be voted in to have a sound economic plan to see the country through this difficult time.

The issue of taxes is causing a heated debate. The NDP is accusing the Conservatives for poor tax system. The NDP government is promising a viable investment environment for the Canadian businesses in order to create more jobs. He has pledged to put more Canadian dollar in providing health care and education to all.

When

It’s now a campaign period and elections campaigns here are not different from other campaigns in the rest of the world. Candidates are trading accusations against each other to win voter’s mercy. The prime minister is in the center of all accusations with other candidates blaming him for the problems facing Canada. NDP leader accuses the prime minister for neglecting Canadians for the last two years while in office and promises voter that would improve the economy if given chance.

Layton, if I was elected, I would work tirelessly to protect the things average Canadians worry about: their jobs, their homes, their pensions” (Convert et al). According to recent poll results, prime minister’s popularity is fading as the D day approaches.

Why

Addressing his public rallies, Layton has promised the Canadians a better future, and has asked voters to rally behind him to keep Canada’s economy prospering. Layton sees the PM as a failure; he accuses the PM for not doing enough to protect peoples’ savings, jobs and even mortgages. He warns the nation against voting the PM back, because he has failed and he is not expected to change anything for better.

According to Layton, the PM has no respect to voters because he presented his manifesto with few days left before elections and asked them not to take him with seriousness. As the economy goes through this turbulent time, Layton is promising to provide protection to peoples’ jobs, pension schemes and their mortgages. “It’s especially important that when we have tough times, that we protect those things that are most important to our families, like our health-care system” (Convert et al).

Impact Statement

The article is bound to elicit so much enthusiasm and support from the general population because it tries to paint Lynton as the public savior from the policies of Prime Minister Stephen Harper who Lynton blames for the downturn in the economy; Harper’s do-nothing attitude is what is blamed for the challenges the country is facing. The article is bound to have some impact because it directly identifies with the needs of the general populaces of health care and availability of jobs.

Lynton comes out as the person who understands what is wrong with the economy and how to fix it; he is offering hope by pouring doubt on the opponent.

Works cited

Convert Kim, De Souza Ben, and O’Hara-Byrne Mike (Canwest News Service 2008): Layton pledges to work tirelessly to protect jobs, pensions. Web.

Yaffe Barbara.,(Canwest News Services, 2008): Harper’s cold shoulder hurting party. Web.

Low voter’s turn-out usually leads to unequal socio economic implications. This in turn translates to partisan policy implications. In Ireland when the socio-demographic differences broaden, parties support decreases, pulling party policy and competition to the right hence resulting in the decline of voting patterns within the people of working class. In comparison with the European countries Ireland appeared to fare badly considering the election turnout; the average turnout during the general elections happened to reach only slightly above 70 percent since the year 1970, but presenting a new low with 63 percent during 2002 election. Working class voters in Ireland are abstaining from voting due to various attributes but mainly due to poor performance of their traditional political parties.

In Northern Ireland working class areas, both in Catholic and Protestant ones, there is growing disillusionment with all political parties. In these areas many people decline to vote viewing all the political parties as similar due to awarding themselves salary increments and also left-wing parties adopting right wing policies, for example, the Labour party. The overall turnout, 63.1% – down from about 69% – was very low for Northern Ireland where voting tends to be high.

According to Gray (2000), the cross section analysis of 18 industrial democratic lands between 1950 and 1997 offered the idea that voter’s turnout decrease can be explained regarding changing patterns of electorate demographics and group mobilization. There is a marked pattern of unions and labor parties decline, which has traditionally been connected with the real increases in the cost of mobilization and the mobilization of peripheral voters on one hand and the decline of the voter’s turnout in their area of impact among the voters of the working class.

As it was noted by Kavanagh (2006), other reasons advanced for the decline of voting patterns in the working class, appeared due to the creation of a welfare state. This has undermined the process of voting, by dividing the working class from its usual protectors and leaders to reliance for subsidies on the state. In such welfare societies, trade unions benefits flowed to votes and members in requisite from the members to the benefactors. When these underprivileged classes of voters started to get their welfare cheques, unions had less power or latitude to influence them as to the way of voting or even to compel them to get into the ballot box. The welfare stipend makes them less dependent upon favours from the traditional mobilizers like the Unions who usually had their political preferences and allegiances.

Voter decrease is especially dominating among the unemployed class. This is also due to the lack of acute dependency on the job market on the same traditional power brokers. The potential voter hence becomes independent in his/her own opinion. The unemployed are no longer collectively mobilized to have the same economic interests and opinions making them vote in a certain way. They now can afford to decline and have apathy to voting believing that their one vote will not make any difference.

The trend is more marked among the youth while the older generation tends to turn out more to vote. ‘An International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (1999) study found that the Republic of Ireland had one of the lowest turnout rates in Western Europe for young voters, and had the lowest turnout rate amongst European Union countries for first time voters in the 18-29 age categories.’ (Kavanagh, 2006)

The economic status of the populace has a major influence on the voting patterns. However, lack of strong left-wing parties capable of mobilising working class voters generally results in much lower voter turnout rates in some areas. Similarly, housing tenure is found to have a bearing on turnout propensity with turnouts generally higher among landlords/home owners as opposed to people living in rented housing either council or private.

Owner occupiers may feel they have a stake in the community and hence are more motivated to participate in political decision making that will affect their communities and vice versa on the tenants. The class divide is evident by recent research on Irish voter turnout levels which finds, that all these ‘class related factors have significant influence on the ‘geography” of turnouts within Dublin and other large urban areas, however there is no strong evidence that class influences impact significantly on levels in rural areas.’ (Kavanagh, 2002b)

Conclusion

Low and waning election turnout is commonly viewed as indicative of worrying trends in democratic politics. Whenever everyone votes there can be no socio-demographic bias in turnout and in the political representation of the citizen’s preferences. Michael Marsh (2006) Ireland declining voter turnout may be attributed to; in part the disillusionment on of voters by their traditional political parties, the decline of the trade unions influences on the working class, the rise of the welfare state whereby state stipend guarantee meal ticket, the nationalization and construction of industries hence increasing job prospects and further eroding the influence of the trade unions.

Lastly, there is a lack of left-wing parties capable of mobilizing the working class. In conclusion it should be stressed that there is some evidence stating that turnout effects might go through just into political outcomes. Thus, for example, improved support for parties of the left leads to higher welfare spending turn and state interventions in labor markets and in the macro-economy. (Castles and McKinlay 1979; Hicks and Swank 1992; Hill, Leighley and Hinton-Andersson 1995).The turnout of the low voter ultimately restricts the elections ability of reflecting national preferences; and electoral arena may provide different people with various degrees of political impact, even in case of all citizens’ formal equality before the law can be rigorously upheld (Tóka 2002, 5).

References

Brian Micklethwait (2005) Voting decline and the two welfare states UK affairs. Web.

Declining Voter Turnout in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 1950 to 1997 the Effects of Declining Group Mobilization Mark Gray of California, Irvine. Web.

Dr. Adrian Kavanagh (2007) Second order elections and the Republic of Ireland: A spatial perspective on turnout differences between the 2002 General Election and 2004 local elections.

Dr. Adrian Kavanagh (2006) Second order elections and the Republic of Ireland: A spatial perspective on turnout differences between the 2002 General Election and 2004 local elections – Dr. Adrian Kavanagh.

Michael Marsh (2006) Partisan Effects of Voter Turnout in the 2002 Irish General Election, Paper prepared for EPOP annual conference Nottingham.

Nora Owen (2008) Complacency is a threat to true democracy (Irish Times).

Partisan Effects of Voter Turnout in the 2002 Irish General Election by Michael Marsh – Paper prepared for EPOP annual conference Nottingham.

Pat Lyons & Richard Sinnott, (2006) Voter Turnout in the Republic of Ireland,( New York, Prentice Hall).

The 2007 General Election in the Republic of Ireland: A Geographical Study by Adrian Kavanagh, Department of Geography, NUI Maynooth Research associate of National Institute of Regional and Spatial Analysis (NUIM), National Centre for Geocomputation.

“Voters, Parties, Pacts in Western Europe” Kerstin Hemman and John Kelly Paper prepared for 15^th International Conference for European Studies, Chicago, IL.