Why do Americans vote the way they do?

The United States of America has such a diverse range of culture that many a time it has
been referred to as being a salad bowl, full of various identities never merging with each
other. As a result of this concept, there are many statistics and stereotypes that can allow
political observers the chance to make predictions on how a certain person may vote and
why he or she would vote in that particular way.

Professor Russell Dalton states that “while social characteristics may be a basis for
making decisions, citizens also hold a variety of political beliefs and values that affect
their electoral calculus.”1 Dalton is indicating that a voter’s own political beliefs may
suit him or her to a particular party. From the 2004 Presidential Election statistics2, 21
percent of the US electorate identified themselves as being liberal whereas 34 percent
associated themselves as being conservative. With the Democrat party being the liberal
party of America, 85 percent of the liberal voters voted for John Kerry, the Democrat
Presidential candidate. The Republican party’s candidate, George Bush, gained 84
percent of the conservative voters’ votes due to the Republican’s conservative
background. Interestingly, 45 percent of the US electorate identified themselves as
moderate with 54 percent of their votes going to Kerry. This may be as a result of current
affairs such as Iraq: moderate voters, in theory, sit on the fence between the two big
parties. They may vote for one party in one election but the other in the next. Kenneth
Shepsle labels this as instrumental rationality, which is when someone is “acting in
accord with both one’s preferences and one’s beliefs.”3 In this case, the voter votes for
which party best suits them, which again indicates party affiliation. From these statistics,
it can be concluded that political ideology can be a strong indication on why Americans
may vote in a particular way.

Another factor explaining American voting behaviour can be down to the gender of the
voter, particularly females. 54 percent of the 2004 electorate was female of which 51
percent of them voted for Kerry. Kenneth Janda states that women are “consistently less
supportive of the death penalty and going to war.”4 If this is correct, then the Democrats
with their liberal approach would be more likely to take these views into consideration,
thus explaining a possible reason to why the majority of females voted for Kerry.
Interestingly the majority of the male electorate voted for Bush (55 percent), so there
appears to be a gender allegiance to the parties – females for the Democrats and males for
the Republicans. The age of a voter may indicate why he or she may vote for a certain
party. 17 percent of the US electorate was in the 18-29 age bracket: 54 percent of these
voters voted for the Democrats. It can be assumed that enthusiastic young voters would
want to be more involved in politics and see new radical policies introduced by the

1
Russell J Dalton, “Citizen Politics Second Edition”, (Chatham House Publishers Inc., Chatham, New
Jersey, 1996), p196
2
Robert J McKeever/Philip Davies, “A Brief Introduction to US Politics”, (Pearson Longman, 2006), p52-
53
3
Kenneth A Shepsle/Mark S Bonchek, “Analyzing Politics: Rationality, Behaviour and Institutions”, (WW
Norton & Company, New York London, 1997), p18
4
Kenneth Janda/Jeffrey M Berry/Jerry Goldman, “The Challenge of Democracy”, (Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston, New York, 2005), p156
government. As the Democrats are more liberal in comparison to the Republicans, this
may have explained why the majority of young US voters voted for the Democrats. On
the other hand, 54 percent of voters aged 60 or above voted for the Republicans. This
could be as a result of their more conservative views as they wish to preserve their way of
life with minimal change. Therefore, it would make sense for them to vote for a
conservative party. A further voting trend that may give explanations to voting behaviour
is racial background. 77 percent of the US electorate, a strong majority, is white; 58
percent of them voted for Bush. However, the majorities of all the other races (African
Americans, Latinos, Asians for instance) all voted for Kerry – especially the African
Americans of which 88 percent of their electorate voted for the Democrats. This could be
due to historical events such as the 1930s New Deal laws and the 1960s Civil Rights Acts
– both passed during the eras of Democrat governments. Although the Democrats did
well in obtaining majorities in most racial group votes, the Republicans still gained a
sizeable proportion of the votes as a result of gaining a majority of the white race alone.

The candidates’ personality plays a part in providing answers to American voting

behaviour. Richard Neustadt has famously been quoted as saying that the President’s real
power is the “power to persuade.”5 In a sense, this term can be used to describe the
Presidential candidates’ capabilities to gain the attention and trust of voters in order to
win the election. Dalton has stated that “voting researchers…view candidates’ images as
commodities packaged by image makers who manipulate the public by emphasising traits
with special appeal to the voters.”6 Effectively, the presidential candidates need to rely
on appearance and personality to win the election more so than their policies due to the
extensive television coverage they will be subjected to during the build up to the election.
In Bush’s case coming into the 2004 election, 53 percent of the electorate considered him
as a favourable candidate. A minority of 47 percent believed Kerry was favourable – of
that proportion, Kerry lost 9 percent of their votes to Bush (Bush lost 6 percent of the
votes from those who thought he was favourable). Therefore, public opinion on the
personal qualities of the President plays a significant role in giving out clues to how
Americans decide who to vote for.

It is worth noting that a person’s religious beliefs can be a possible explanation to why he
or she votes for a particular party. Combining both the Protestant and Catholic Christians
adds up to 81 percent of the electorate – a huge proportion. Bush was the lucky candidate
who got majorities in both denominations (59 percent of the Protestant vote and 52
percent of the Catholics’.) A strong reason for the Republican majorities could be down
to religiosity: religious people may put their religious rules and morals ahead of their own
political interests and therefore vote for the party that would most suit their faith. Janda
states that “When asked about the nature of the Bible in 2000, about 35 percent of
respondents said it was the actual word of God.”7 With that in mind, it may explain why
Christians will be more likely to vote for the Republicans seeing as they may be more
5
Richard Neustadt, “Presidential Power and the Modern President
<http://alpha.fdu.edu/~peabody/neustadt.html>
6
Russell J Dalton, “Citizen Politics Second Edition”, (Chatham House Publishers Inc., Chatham, New
Jersey, 1996), p233
7
Kenneth Janda/Jeffrey M Berry/Jerry Goldman, “The Challenge of Democracy”, (Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston, New York, 2005), p155
restrictive than the Democrats in cases such as homosexual relationships and abortions –
two issues strongly opposed by Christians. However, people of other beliefs (including
non religious voters) all gave their respective majorities to Kerry (74 percent of the
Jews’, 74 percent of other faiths and 67 percent of Atheists.) This could be because of the
varying morals in religious beliefs or the fact that they are under no religious obligation
to vote in a particular way.

The annual income of an American may indicate how he or she will vote in an election.
The 2004 figures show that the majority of Americans earning less than $50,000 (45
percent of the electorate) voted for Kerry. This is possibly because they feel that the
Democrats, being more liberal than the Republicans, will be more likely to introduce
social benefits and initiatives aimed at improving their quality of life. On the other hand,
the majority of Americans earning more than $50,000 (52 percent of the electorate) voted
for Bush. The Republicans have traditionally been considered a big business party with a
laissez-faire approach to peoples’ finances, so therefore, voters content with their income
may vote for this kind of party if it means avoiding increased taxation or any social
reform. This sort of voting behaviour fits into the standard socioeconomic model. Janda
defines this model as being “a relationship between socioeconomic status and
conventional political involvement.”8 He goes on to state that in theory, voters with a
greater standard of living along with an increased level of education may be more
actively aware in politics compared to people in poorer backgrounds. This model, if
correct, may indicate that more Republican voters (based on stereotyping) vote in
comparison to Democrat voters. However, despite of all these different models and
stereotypical predictions to how an American may vote, one must remember that
“citizens can now reach their own voting decisions without relying on broad external
cues such as social class or family partisanship”9 (stressed by Dalton) so therefore voting
behaviour is still an unpredictable topic.

To conclude, the question of why Americans vote the way they do cannot be given a
direct answer. Humans can behave in such unpredictable ways that voting behaviour can
never be predicted to occur in a straightforward way; only assumed through
generalisations and statistics. If one is not satisfied with an answer based on statistics and
generalisations, then the only way to gain a deeper understanding to why Americans vote
the way they do is by asking the Americans themselves.

Word count: 1481

Bibliography

8
Kenneth Janda/Jeffrey M Berry/Jerry Goldman, “The Challenge of Democracy”, (Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston, New York, 2005), p224
9
Russell J Dalton, “Citizen Politics Second Edition”, (Chatham House Publishers Inc., Chatham, New
Jersey, 1996), p235
Books

Robert J McKeever/Philip Davies, “A Brief Introduction to US Politics”, (Pearson

Longman, 2006) *

Russell J Dalton, “Citizen Politics Second Edition”, (Chatham House Publishers Inc.,
Chatham, New Jersey, 1996)

Kenneth A Shepsle/Mark S Bonchek, “Analyzing Politics: Rationality, Behaviour and

Institutions”, (WW Norton & Company, New York London, 1997)

Kenneth Janda/Jeffrey M Berry/Jerry Goldman, “The Challenge of Democracy”,

(Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, New York, 2005)

*All 2004 Presidential election statistics were taken from pages 52 and 53 of this book.

Web Sites

http://alpha.fdu.edu/~peabody/neustadt.html