Voting behaviour
Explain and analyse three recency factors that affect voting behaviour
Incumbency - An individual running for re-election has a better chance of receiving another term, than one who hasn’t run before. In the 2018 midterms, of those Senate and House incumbents who sought
reelection 90.5% succeeded. This is significant because incumbents are more likely to be re-elected because their constituents know who they are and they can also boast their past achievements, e.g.
federal funding and jobs secured for their state or district (pork barrelling). This is also significant because incumbents can also serve on congressional committees that influence policies particularly
relevant to their region. They may also boast experience and a commitment to public office and service. Lastly, they can generate a donor base and can benefit from an established campaign organisation.
They can also build up considerable campaign war-chests, possibly preventing the potential challengers from either within (via primaries) or outside their party. At presidency level, incumbency helps
because there have only been a few presidents who haven’t had two terms. Most presidents have more votes and electoral college votes second term. However, incumbency may be less significant in
affecting the way people vote because incumbency doesn’t guarantee a re-election, for example: In the 2018 midterms, 4 incumbent Democrats, and 1 Republican lost re-election bids.
Issues - Policy issues, especially those of competence and trust, can also affect voting behaviour. For example, Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign strategist James Carville placed a sign over the
desk in the Little Rock headquarters which said ‘It’s the economy, Stupid!’ This was significant because it helped Clinton win by attacking the incumbent president’s economic record.
An example of an issue surrounding competency that affects voting behaviour is how the president deals with issues, e.g. George W. Bush’s response to the 9/11 terror attacks helped restore unity in
America and made his approval ratings reach 90% which helped him get re-elected in 2004. However, his late and lacklustre handling of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 led him to receive an approval rating of
38% later that year.
Another issue is the ‘October Surprise’ in which it is a news event that either happens deliberately or spontaneously before the polls open in November, which can undoubtedly influence a presidential
election. It can boost support for one candidate, or reduce it for another. In 2016, a tape from 2005 emerged featuring Trump making vulgar and disparaging comments about women which unsettled his
campaign, likewise, Hillary Clinton’s surprise involved a form of accusations that she had used a private email server while serving as Secretary of State, and the FBI launched an inquiry. This was very
significant as it potentially damaged both of their campaigns, however, Trump’s remarks were quickly dismissed by conservative voters, allowing him to retain their votes.
Media - The media can project a candidate’s desirable image while attacking the integrity and record of their opponent. For example, in 2012, Obama’s campaign ad ‘Remember’ promoted Obama’s record
in raising US oil production while also promoting renewable energy and closing tax loopholes for oil companies. It then went on to attack his opponent Mitt Romney for acting in the interests of the big,
wealthy oil companies. This was very significant because the majority of campaign ads are attack ads which portray rivals as untrustworthy, corrupt, dangerous, or the prisoner of special interest groups.
Televised debate of 2016 had 84 million viewers.
Social media is less significant because it reinforces the political base, rather than switching allegiances for voters or swing voters specifically.
Mainstream media is very significant because news outlets like Fox (Republican) and MSNBC (Democrat) have become more partisan. In 2016, right-wing outlets leapt on the news surrounding Hillary
Clinton’s email servers, while those of a more liberal disposition dwelt on Trump’s verbal indiscretions.
Explain and analyse three factors that affect voting behaviour
Leadership and other individual qualities of candidates - A party emphasises the candidates own qualities, experience and policies. ‘Make America Great Again’ was Trump’s slogan in 2016 and 2020, not
the Republican party’s. The emphasis on personality and individual leadership in part reflects the role of primaries in which candidates run and fund their own campaigns. This is significant because it
means a candidate’s wins owe much to their own efforts, contacts and organisational abilities. The nature of the presidential office itself encourages a focus on the individual. Social media also creates a
‘cult of personality’ as it is the individual that secures followers, not the party. For example, in early 2020, Trump had 42 million Twitter followers, whereas the Republican Party had less than 2.4 million
followers.
Voter profile - The voter’s profile is important when analysing voting behaviour. For example, in the 2020 presidential election, 87% of African-Americans voted Democrat, whereas 58% of white voters
voted for Trump. Likewise, 57% of women voted for Biden, whereas 53% of men voted for Trump. This is significant because there may be many personal reasons as to why one from a white and
evangelical background may be more inclined to vote for a Republican.
Money - Without access to decent funding, candidates have a slimmer chance of success, especially in higher-tier elections. Money buys professional advice, airtime, advertising and much more. This is
significant because money can also affect presidential outcomes: in 2020, Biden heavily outspent Trump and won, likewise in 2012, Obama outspent his challenger Mitt Romney. However, this could be
seen as insignificant. Maybe Obama would’ve won regardless of money since he had the benefit of incumbency and arguably Romney was not the most charismatic or inspiring candidate. Furthermore,
having more money doesn't guarantee success as Trump was heavily outspent by Hillary Clinton in 2016. Likewise, Heidi Heitkamp for North Dakota in 2016 was an incumbent legislator who heavily
outspent her challenger but still lost, showing money doesn’t mean anything.
Explain and analyse three primary factors that affect voting behaviour
Race - For example, in the USA, in the 2020 presidential election, 87% of African-American people voted Democrat, while 58% of white voters voted for Trump. This is significant because the
African-American population are more likely to experience social deprivation and the Democrats aim to prevent this by implementing more social welfare programmes and affirmative action. This can be
supported by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition and Social programmes in which more reforms were made to help the vulnerable groups in society. Whereas, white voters tended to vote for Trump
due to his policies on immigration which were favourable amongst white nationalist groups and white supremacist groups like the Proud Boys.
Wealth - For example, in the USA, 54% of those earning over $100,000 per annum voted for Trump, whereas 55% of those earning under $50,000 per annum voted for Biden. This is somewhat significant
because those earning more money would have been more inclined to vote for Trump due to his commitment to low taxation which can be shown in his Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 2017 while president in which
he cut individual income tax rates to 37%. However, some could say wealth is less significant because rich voters do not overwhelmingly vote Republican, nor do poorer voters strongly support Democrat.
Much depends on race and religion. Republics get a lot of support from white voters in some of the poorest states, such as Mississippi and West Virginia. Whereas, some of the wealthiest states, such as
New Jersey and Maryland, are Democrat strongholds.
Religion - For example, in the USA, religion is a polarising issue with white evangelical Christians fiercely backing the Republicans (76% of them voted for Trump). Whereas, 65% of those without a
religious affiliation voted for Biden. This is very significant because Evangelical Christians typically are pro-life, meaning that they oppose abortion, which the republicans adamantly believe, whereas the
Democrats are mostly pro-choice, and are also supported by Planned Parenthood.
Explain and analyse three core voting groups
White evangelical Christians - Republican: Pro-life, pro-Israel, promotion of traditional social values especially in the areas of LGBTQ+ and transgender rights.
Gun owners - Republicans: Defence of the Second Amendment, opposition to most gun control measures.
African- Americans - Democrats: Continued support for civil rights, opposition to ‘voter suppression’ tactics such as tougher ID laws, support for fair non-discriminatory policing (Black Lives Matter), tackling
poverty.
Explain and analyse three ways in which rational theory could be used to study voting behaviour in both the UK and US
One way that rational theory could be used to study voting behaviour in both the US and UK is by observing race. For example, in the USA, in the 2020 presidential election, 87% of African-American
people voted Democrat, while 58% of white voters voted for Trump. This is significant because the African-American population are more likely to experience social deprivation and the Democrats aim to
prevent this by implementing more social welfare programmes and affirmative action. This can be supported by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition and social programmes in which more reforms
were made to help the vulnerable groups in society. Whereas, white voters tended to vote for Trump due to his policies on immigration which were favourable amongst white nationalist groups and white
supremacist groups like the Proud Boys. Similarly, in the UK’s 2019 general election, according to IPSOS 64% of all Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) voters voted labour, while 20% voted for the
Conservative. This is very significant because the Labour Party has been commonly viewed as the party that is the home for ethnic minorities due to the fact that they were the first to elect the first 4 Black
MPs to the House of Commons in 1987. Overall, race is a more significant factor in studying rational theory in the US compared to the UK because of the growing divisions between different groups in
society.
The second way that rational theory could be used to study voting behaviour in both the US and UK is by looking at wealth. For example, in the USA, 54% of those earning over $100,000 per annum voted
for Trump, whereas 55% of those earning under $50,000 per annum voted for Biden. This is somewhat significant because those earning more money would have been more inclined to vote for Trump due
to his commitment to low taxation which can be shown in his Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 2017 while president in which he cut individual income tax rates to 37%. Likewise, in the UK 2019 general election, the
Conservatives did very well amongst the ABC1 voters, in which they received 43% of their vote, whereas Labour only received 33% amongst this social grade. This is significant because it shows that they
do marginally better than the Labour Party amongst more wealthy voters because they have traditionally been more appealing to homeowners and businesspeople due to their commitment to not raise
taxes. Whereas, Labour has traditionally been viewed as more appealing to low-income voters. However, the Conservatives did better amongst the C2DE voters with 48% suggesting that those from
socio-economic areas are becoming more inclined to vote for the Conservatives but this might have been linked to Brexit as it was more popular among low-income voters, so they might have voted for
Johnson out of frustration that the previous prime minister’s were unable to implement it. Overall wealth is partially important in studying rational theory in both the US and the UK, although it is not as rigid
as the other factors, so it might be harder to generalise.
The last way that rational theory could be used to study voting behaviour in both the US and UK is by observing religion. For example, in the USA, religion is a polarising issue with white evangelical
Christians fiercely backing the Republicans (76% of them voted for Trump). Whereas, 65% of those without a religious affiliation voted for Biden. This is very significant because Evangelical Christians
typically are pro-life, meaning that they oppose abortion, which the republicans adamantly believe, whereas the Democrats are mostly pro-choice, and are also supported by Planned Parenthood.
Contrastingly, in the UK, religion is not seen as a detrimental issue, except in regards to euthanasia, in which most Conservative MPs voting against the Assisted Dying Bill in 2015, while more Labour MPs
voted for the bill than any other party which would have legalised it. This was not very significant because religion is mostly irrelevant in British politics, except for in Northern Ireland where religion is very
important, particularly in regards to abortion and same-sex marriage. However, overall religion is a very significant factor in studying rational theory in the US compared to in the UK, even to the extent
where it is in the last line of their State of Union Address, emphasising its importance in American society.
, Explain and analyse three realignment elections:
One realignment election was the 1932 realignment election in which there was a huge swing to the Democrats. It was a significant presidential election because the Great Depression started under
Republican President Herbert Hoover’s watch and he failed to adequately address the crisis effectively or rapidly. This led the Democrats to nominate New York governor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who
had a solid reputation of his own, having mobilised his state government much more to effectively fight the impact of the Great Depression. Before, Hoover was praised for his laissez-faire economics but
after the Wall Street Crash it showed that this approach was no longer effective. It was viewed as reckless lending, and an artificial inflation of stock values. In 1928 the Republicans had won by a margin of
over 6 million votes and by 444-87 electoral college votes, but in 1932, the Democrats won by 7 million votes and by 472-59 electoral college votes. This was very significant because it clearly shows many
voters became unsatisfied with the current Republican Party. This led to Roosevelt having a more interventionist government, A New Deal. He also built up a coalition of voters named ‘The New Deal
Coalition’ which combined Conservative southern Protestants (Dixiecrats), northern Jews, Catholics, African-Americans, labour union members, small farmers in the Midwest and Plains states, liberals and
radicals. The broad grouping allowed the Democrats to dominate US politics until the 1960s. Except for Dwight D. Eisenhower (1952-60), every US President between 1932 and 1968 was a Democrat. The
party also controlled both houses of Congress for nearly this entire period - it controlled the Senate for all but 4 years between 1932 and 1980. The voter coalition began to break up in the 1960s, largely as
a result of the civil rights movement when the support for civil rights legislation by President Johnson effectively ‘signed away the South’ for the Democrats.
The second realignment election was in 1968. Although they won a landslide in 1964, Lyndon B.Johnson could not hold the previously ‘solid south’ states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and
South Carolina. This was a consequence of the civil rights agenda of the Democratic Party under Johnson and his predecessor John F. Kennedy, culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. During the
1968 election, Republican Richard Nixon created an innovative ‘southern strategy’ calling for ‘states rights’ and an end to federal government interference. The Southern Strategy targeted white
conservative southerners who felt betrayed by the Democratic Party’s support of civil rights measures in the 1960s. The Republicans emphasised state’s rights and a tough line on law and order, which
some commentators have viewed as dog whistle politics (coded language which means one thing for one group while simultaneously meaning another thing for a targeted group). This was significant
because the 1964 and 1968 elections saw 80% of African-Americans support the Democrat’s (up from 50%). Democrats still receive firm and strong support from African-Americans, just as the Deep South
is still safely and confidently red.
The last realignment election was arguably in 2016 when Donald Trump won which would be seen as a realignment election, but we don’t know to which extent it had a lasting/permanent impact. It could
be seen as a realignment election because: It was the first example since Eisenhower in 1952 of victory by a political outsider as Trump had no previous political experience, it was a victory for populism
over experience and mainstream politicians, it revealed the growing gap between the urban multiethnic USA and the white rural USA as each voted in record numbers for their candidate, and the main
change was among less well-educated white people in the Upper Midwest states like Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin, for example white voters went for Trump 62%-33%, a considerable improvement from
2012 when Mitt Romney won 57% of the white vote. The largest shift in a county was in Monroe County, where the Republican vote shot up from 52% in 2012 to 72% in 2016. There was some suggestion
that white people in the Upper Midwest/Rust Belt states might be voting more like white people in the South, i.e. Republican partly due to the decline in trade unions which traditionally played a key role in
getting the white blue-collar worker vote for the Democrats. This election was significant because the Republicans accomplished a clean sweep of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives,
in the middle of significant changes to their support base. Trump won in the typically Democrat Rust Belt states like Ohio and Michigan, representing a change in the loyalties of white blue-collar voters in
support of his industrial strategy, promising more jobs and trade. It was his narrow victory in states like Wisconsin that led him to win the election, despite losing the popular vote. Trump also did well in the
northeast, coming close in New Hampshire, Minnesota and Maine. Even though the Republicans gained remarkable control at state level, holding 33 governorships and control of 32 state legislatures, they
went on to lose control of the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterms, so it is yet to see if the apparent shift towards a new populist conservatism is sustained/maintained. However, it may not be a
true realignment election because the 3 rust belt states that flipped for Trump in 2016 reverted back to the Democrats in 2020, but the swings were small in both cases. Also because it became clear that in
2020 the Republicans were continuing to lose ground in Arizona and Georgia, largely due to demographic changes.
Explain and analyse three ways why the 1932 presidential election is considered to be a realignment election
One reason why the 1932 presidential election is considered to be a realigning election is due to the New Deal Coalition. This was Franklin D.Roosevelt’s solution to the Great Depression that began in
1929. The New Deal Coalition was an inclusive proposal in which he would provide affirmative action to minorities. He attracted members of trade unions, the working class and blue collar workers. This
was very significant because this inclusivity is still a defining feature of the Democratic Party and it caused many people, particularly African-Americans – who were greatly impacted by the Great
Depression – to pledge allegiance to the party.
Another reason why the 1932 presidential election is considered to be a realigning election is because of the New Deal Social and Economic Programmes. These programmes helped to rebuild the
economy by creating more jobs and stimulating industrial production. One example is the Public Works Administration which helped to build services like hospitals and schools, using federal funds. This
was more significant than the New Deal Coalition because it lasted for decades, whilst the coalition eventually fell down. These programmes were important in recovering the state of the country. This
almost definitely made people realign to the Democratic Party because his aim was to help people, socially and economically, whilst the Republican Party did not.
The last reason why the 1932 presidential election is considered to be a realigning election is because of the presidential use of the media. Roosevelt wisely used the media to his advantage. His inaugural
address was delivered to millions on the radio and he clearly outlined his aims to help the American economy. He did everything that he said he would, especially by ‘put[ting] people to work’. This was
somewhat significant as he had to give listeners a clear indication of what was to come, but I don’t think it was detrimental in making people realign to the Democratic Party.
Explain and analyse three ways in which the 1968 Presidential Election was a realigning election?
One way in which the 1968 Presidential Election was a realigning election is due to Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’. This was Nixon’s initiative to appeal to the traditional, conservative, white population in the
South who felt they were abandoned when civil rights legislation was being made. A lot of White Southerners, especially those in the Deep South were against liberal views on abortion, homosexuality and
civil rights. They were mainly against desegregation. George Wallace was a prominent figure who was a third-party segregationist and attracted this group. This was somewhat significant because the
‘Solid South’ abandoned the Democrat’s to return to their old-fashioned, outdated views. Many conservative Democrats in the southern states felt neglected even with the New Deal, so this election caused
them to revert back to more traditional ideas.
Another way in which the 1968 Presidential Election was a realigning election was because it was amid increasing social and political problems in the USA. One popular issue was crime. Nixon was the
candidate who wanted to ensure law and order. It led to political dilemmas such as Vietnam into a simple and clear legal position in which crime is wrong and criminals must be punished for their actions.
This was fairly significant as it ensured voters that safety and security would be provided. This was especially important after the assassination of Martin Luther King in which huge riots broke out. Nixon
wanted to help regain a civil society which led voters to realign and support him and his party.
The last way in which the 1968 presidential election was a realigning election is due to the neutral position that Nixon maintained. While Humphrey and the Democrats were extreme socialists, Nixon was a
centrist which allowed him to appeal to both sides of the political spectrum. Although he did not support the Johnson-Humphrey Administration policy on the war, he didn’t have his own policy. This worked
out in his favour because as long as the war continued to go awry, the people who wanted to leave and the people who wanted it to continue would both find Nixon’s stance agreeable. This was significant
as his stance was preferred to an extreme one, so more people would support his neutrality instead of an extreme political leader.
Explain and analyse why the 2016 presidential election is considered to be a realigning election?
One way in which the 2016 presidential election is considered to be a realignment election due to Trump’s acceptable, yet extreme, ideology. Donald Trump became one of the most outspoken and
opinionated political figures in 2016. One of his most famous proposals was by banning people from Muslim-majority countries to prevent terrorism. Although this was undeniably discriminatory, it was
accepted by Republicans who felt it was necessary in order to prevent terrorism. This was very significant because it not only changed the public’s perception of Trump but also the Republican Party and
what it stood for. As it only ignited right-wing extreme conservative ideologies.
Another way in which the 2016 presidential election is considered to be a realigning election is due to the split in the Democratic Party. Senator Bernie Sanders was popular amongst young adults, while
Hillary Clinton was more popular amongst middle-aged, middle-class Americans. This was partially significant because Clinton was not only trying to win against Trump, but also Sanders which made it
even harder for her to gain office. It was significant because there had never been such a split in the party which led there to be a clash between young and older Democrat’s. Many were dissatisfied with
Clinton so they decided to vote for the republicans instead.
The last way in which the 2016 Presidential Election was a realigning election was due to the media. The televised debates did not shed light on policy detail, but instead on the personalities of the leaders.
The media also released and published Donald Trump’s ‘groping tapes’ and Clinton’s suspicious emails. This was very important and significant because had these not been published there may not have
been a realignment as it greatly impacted the loyalty Democrat’s had to Clinton. After the email scandal, many departed her party and decided to vote for Trump.
Task 6: Explain and analyse three factors which influenced voting in the 2020 presidential election
One factor which influenced voting in the 2020 presidential election was religion. Religion is very divided in America. Democrat’s were traditionally Protestants, Jews and Catholics, while the Republicans
were usually Evangelical Christians and some Catholics. One example are Jews. Jewish voters strongly supported Joe Biden. Biden received 77% of the Jewish vote, while Trump only got 21%. Jewish
voters were primarily concerned with the coronavirus pandemic and climate change which is why Biden was the preferred president, instead of Trump. This is significant because if the president supports
or agrees with what the marginalised group wants, then it is more likely that they will secure their vote. Religion always influenced voting in an election.
Another factor which influenced voting in the 2020 presidential election was gender. Men are more likely to vote for the Republican Party, while women are more likely to vote for the Democrats. This is
because the Democratic Party’s aims and policies are more in line with the priorities of women. This is significant because if the Republican Party was to adopt more policies that’s support women like
abortion then they would probably gain more votes. But, Biden and his party support equality and abortion which makes them more likeable to a woman.
The last factor which influenced voting in the 2020 presidential election was race. White voters (60% of the US population) were more likely to vote for the Republican Party during this election. Republican
policies appeal to a lot of white voters irrespective of their socioeconomic background. On the other hand, Democrat’s received 75% of the African American vote which was the lowest since 2004, but still
relatively high. Trump only received 12% in 2020 (a small increase from 8% in 2016). More members of the black community voted for Trump because they thought he was more likely to bring about
economic prosperity and financial security. This is extremely significant because race plays a huge role in American politics as different parties have different opinions on the black community and how to
help them. The Democrat Party will always have the support of the black community because it represents them socially and economically, while many fear the republicans do not.
Task 7: Explain and analyse three factors which influence turnout in U.S. Elections
Explain and analyse three recency factors that affect voting behaviour
Incumbency - An individual running for re-election has a better chance of receiving another term, than one who hasn’t run before. In the 2018 midterms, of those Senate and House incumbents who sought
reelection 90.5% succeeded. This is significant because incumbents are more likely to be re-elected because their constituents know who they are and they can also boast their past achievements, e.g.
federal funding and jobs secured for their state or district (pork barrelling). This is also significant because incumbents can also serve on congressional committees that influence policies particularly
relevant to their region. They may also boast experience and a commitment to public office and service. Lastly, they can generate a donor base and can benefit from an established campaign organisation.
They can also build up considerable campaign war-chests, possibly preventing the potential challengers from either within (via primaries) or outside their party. At presidency level, incumbency helps
because there have only been a few presidents who haven’t had two terms. Most presidents have more votes and electoral college votes second term. However, incumbency may be less significant in
affecting the way people vote because incumbency doesn’t guarantee a re-election, for example: In the 2018 midterms, 4 incumbent Democrats, and 1 Republican lost re-election bids.
Issues - Policy issues, especially those of competence and trust, can also affect voting behaviour. For example, Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign strategist James Carville placed a sign over the
desk in the Little Rock headquarters which said ‘It’s the economy, Stupid!’ This was significant because it helped Clinton win by attacking the incumbent president’s economic record.
An example of an issue surrounding competency that affects voting behaviour is how the president deals with issues, e.g. George W. Bush’s response to the 9/11 terror attacks helped restore unity in
America and made his approval ratings reach 90% which helped him get re-elected in 2004. However, his late and lacklustre handling of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 led him to receive an approval rating of
38% later that year.
Another issue is the ‘October Surprise’ in which it is a news event that either happens deliberately or spontaneously before the polls open in November, which can undoubtedly influence a presidential
election. It can boost support for one candidate, or reduce it for another. In 2016, a tape from 2005 emerged featuring Trump making vulgar and disparaging comments about women which unsettled his
campaign, likewise, Hillary Clinton’s surprise involved a form of accusations that she had used a private email server while serving as Secretary of State, and the FBI launched an inquiry. This was very
significant as it potentially damaged both of their campaigns, however, Trump’s remarks were quickly dismissed by conservative voters, allowing him to retain their votes.
Media - The media can project a candidate’s desirable image while attacking the integrity and record of their opponent. For example, in 2012, Obama’s campaign ad ‘Remember’ promoted Obama’s record
in raising US oil production while also promoting renewable energy and closing tax loopholes for oil companies. It then went on to attack his opponent Mitt Romney for acting in the interests of the big,
wealthy oil companies. This was very significant because the majority of campaign ads are attack ads which portray rivals as untrustworthy, corrupt, dangerous, or the prisoner of special interest groups.
Televised debate of 2016 had 84 million viewers.
Social media is less significant because it reinforces the political base, rather than switching allegiances for voters or swing voters specifically.
Mainstream media is very significant because news outlets like Fox (Republican) and MSNBC (Democrat) have become more partisan. In 2016, right-wing outlets leapt on the news surrounding Hillary
Clinton’s email servers, while those of a more liberal disposition dwelt on Trump’s verbal indiscretions.
Explain and analyse three factors that affect voting behaviour
Leadership and other individual qualities of candidates - A party emphasises the candidates own qualities, experience and policies. ‘Make America Great Again’ was Trump’s slogan in 2016 and 2020, not
the Republican party’s. The emphasis on personality and individual leadership in part reflects the role of primaries in which candidates run and fund their own campaigns. This is significant because it
means a candidate’s wins owe much to their own efforts, contacts and organisational abilities. The nature of the presidential office itself encourages a focus on the individual. Social media also creates a
‘cult of personality’ as it is the individual that secures followers, not the party. For example, in early 2020, Trump had 42 million Twitter followers, whereas the Republican Party had less than 2.4 million
followers.
Voter profile - The voter’s profile is important when analysing voting behaviour. For example, in the 2020 presidential election, 87% of African-Americans voted Democrat, whereas 58% of white voters
voted for Trump. Likewise, 57% of women voted for Biden, whereas 53% of men voted for Trump. This is significant because there may be many personal reasons as to why one from a white and
evangelical background may be more inclined to vote for a Republican.
Money - Without access to decent funding, candidates have a slimmer chance of success, especially in higher-tier elections. Money buys professional advice, airtime, advertising and much more. This is
significant because money can also affect presidential outcomes: in 2020, Biden heavily outspent Trump and won, likewise in 2012, Obama outspent his challenger Mitt Romney. However, this could be
seen as insignificant. Maybe Obama would’ve won regardless of money since he had the benefit of incumbency and arguably Romney was not the most charismatic or inspiring candidate. Furthermore,
having more money doesn't guarantee success as Trump was heavily outspent by Hillary Clinton in 2016. Likewise, Heidi Heitkamp for North Dakota in 2016 was an incumbent legislator who heavily
outspent her challenger but still lost, showing money doesn’t mean anything.
Explain and analyse three primary factors that affect voting behaviour
Race - For example, in the USA, in the 2020 presidential election, 87% of African-American people voted Democrat, while 58% of white voters voted for Trump. This is significant because the
African-American population are more likely to experience social deprivation and the Democrats aim to prevent this by implementing more social welfare programmes and affirmative action. This can be
supported by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition and Social programmes in which more reforms were made to help the vulnerable groups in society. Whereas, white voters tended to vote for Trump
due to his policies on immigration which were favourable amongst white nationalist groups and white supremacist groups like the Proud Boys.
Wealth - For example, in the USA, 54% of those earning over $100,000 per annum voted for Trump, whereas 55% of those earning under $50,000 per annum voted for Biden. This is somewhat significant
because those earning more money would have been more inclined to vote for Trump due to his commitment to low taxation which can be shown in his Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 2017 while president in which
he cut individual income tax rates to 37%. However, some could say wealth is less significant because rich voters do not overwhelmingly vote Republican, nor do poorer voters strongly support Democrat.
Much depends on race and religion. Republics get a lot of support from white voters in some of the poorest states, such as Mississippi and West Virginia. Whereas, some of the wealthiest states, such as
New Jersey and Maryland, are Democrat strongholds.
Religion - For example, in the USA, religion is a polarising issue with white evangelical Christians fiercely backing the Republicans (76% of them voted for Trump). Whereas, 65% of those without a
religious affiliation voted for Biden. This is very significant because Evangelical Christians typically are pro-life, meaning that they oppose abortion, which the republicans adamantly believe, whereas the
Democrats are mostly pro-choice, and are also supported by Planned Parenthood.
Explain and analyse three core voting groups
White evangelical Christians - Republican: Pro-life, pro-Israel, promotion of traditional social values especially in the areas of LGBTQ+ and transgender rights.
Gun owners - Republicans: Defence of the Second Amendment, opposition to most gun control measures.
African- Americans - Democrats: Continued support for civil rights, opposition to ‘voter suppression’ tactics such as tougher ID laws, support for fair non-discriminatory policing (Black Lives Matter), tackling
poverty.
Explain and analyse three ways in which rational theory could be used to study voting behaviour in both the UK and US
One way that rational theory could be used to study voting behaviour in both the US and UK is by observing race. For example, in the USA, in the 2020 presidential election, 87% of African-American
people voted Democrat, while 58% of white voters voted for Trump. This is significant because the African-American population are more likely to experience social deprivation and the Democrats aim to
prevent this by implementing more social welfare programmes and affirmative action. This can be supported by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition and social programmes in which more reforms
were made to help the vulnerable groups in society. Whereas, white voters tended to vote for Trump due to his policies on immigration which were favourable amongst white nationalist groups and white
supremacist groups like the Proud Boys. Similarly, in the UK’s 2019 general election, according to IPSOS 64% of all Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) voters voted labour, while 20% voted for the
Conservative. This is very significant because the Labour Party has been commonly viewed as the party that is the home for ethnic minorities due to the fact that they were the first to elect the first 4 Black
MPs to the House of Commons in 1987. Overall, race is a more significant factor in studying rational theory in the US compared to the UK because of the growing divisions between different groups in
society.
The second way that rational theory could be used to study voting behaviour in both the US and UK is by looking at wealth. For example, in the USA, 54% of those earning over $100,000 per annum voted
for Trump, whereas 55% of those earning under $50,000 per annum voted for Biden. This is somewhat significant because those earning more money would have been more inclined to vote for Trump due
to his commitment to low taxation which can be shown in his Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 2017 while president in which he cut individual income tax rates to 37%. Likewise, in the UK 2019 general election, the
Conservatives did very well amongst the ABC1 voters, in which they received 43% of their vote, whereas Labour only received 33% amongst this social grade. This is significant because it shows that they
do marginally better than the Labour Party amongst more wealthy voters because they have traditionally been more appealing to homeowners and businesspeople due to their commitment to not raise
taxes. Whereas, Labour has traditionally been viewed as more appealing to low-income voters. However, the Conservatives did better amongst the C2DE voters with 48% suggesting that those from
socio-economic areas are becoming more inclined to vote for the Conservatives but this might have been linked to Brexit as it was more popular among low-income voters, so they might have voted for
Johnson out of frustration that the previous prime minister’s were unable to implement it. Overall wealth is partially important in studying rational theory in both the US and the UK, although it is not as rigid
as the other factors, so it might be harder to generalise.
The last way that rational theory could be used to study voting behaviour in both the US and UK is by observing religion. For example, in the USA, religion is a polarising issue with white evangelical
Christians fiercely backing the Republicans (76% of them voted for Trump). Whereas, 65% of those without a religious affiliation voted for Biden. This is very significant because Evangelical Christians
typically are pro-life, meaning that they oppose abortion, which the republicans adamantly believe, whereas the Democrats are mostly pro-choice, and are also supported by Planned Parenthood.
Contrastingly, in the UK, religion is not seen as a detrimental issue, except in regards to euthanasia, in which most Conservative MPs voting against the Assisted Dying Bill in 2015, while more Labour MPs
voted for the bill than any other party which would have legalised it. This was not very significant because religion is mostly irrelevant in British politics, except for in Northern Ireland where religion is very
important, particularly in regards to abortion and same-sex marriage. However, overall religion is a very significant factor in studying rational theory in the US compared to in the UK, even to the extent
where it is in the last line of their State of Union Address, emphasising its importance in American society.
, Explain and analyse three realignment elections:
One realignment election was the 1932 realignment election in which there was a huge swing to the Democrats. It was a significant presidential election because the Great Depression started under
Republican President Herbert Hoover’s watch and he failed to adequately address the crisis effectively or rapidly. This led the Democrats to nominate New York governor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who
had a solid reputation of his own, having mobilised his state government much more to effectively fight the impact of the Great Depression. Before, Hoover was praised for his laissez-faire economics but
after the Wall Street Crash it showed that this approach was no longer effective. It was viewed as reckless lending, and an artificial inflation of stock values. In 1928 the Republicans had won by a margin of
over 6 million votes and by 444-87 electoral college votes, but in 1932, the Democrats won by 7 million votes and by 472-59 electoral college votes. This was very significant because it clearly shows many
voters became unsatisfied with the current Republican Party. This led to Roosevelt having a more interventionist government, A New Deal. He also built up a coalition of voters named ‘The New Deal
Coalition’ which combined Conservative southern Protestants (Dixiecrats), northern Jews, Catholics, African-Americans, labour union members, small farmers in the Midwest and Plains states, liberals and
radicals. The broad grouping allowed the Democrats to dominate US politics until the 1960s. Except for Dwight D. Eisenhower (1952-60), every US President between 1932 and 1968 was a Democrat. The
party also controlled both houses of Congress for nearly this entire period - it controlled the Senate for all but 4 years between 1932 and 1980. The voter coalition began to break up in the 1960s, largely as
a result of the civil rights movement when the support for civil rights legislation by President Johnson effectively ‘signed away the South’ for the Democrats.
The second realignment election was in 1968. Although they won a landslide in 1964, Lyndon B.Johnson could not hold the previously ‘solid south’ states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and
South Carolina. This was a consequence of the civil rights agenda of the Democratic Party under Johnson and his predecessor John F. Kennedy, culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. During the
1968 election, Republican Richard Nixon created an innovative ‘southern strategy’ calling for ‘states rights’ and an end to federal government interference. The Southern Strategy targeted white
conservative southerners who felt betrayed by the Democratic Party’s support of civil rights measures in the 1960s. The Republicans emphasised state’s rights and a tough line on law and order, which
some commentators have viewed as dog whistle politics (coded language which means one thing for one group while simultaneously meaning another thing for a targeted group). This was significant
because the 1964 and 1968 elections saw 80% of African-Americans support the Democrat’s (up from 50%). Democrats still receive firm and strong support from African-Americans, just as the Deep South
is still safely and confidently red.
The last realignment election was arguably in 2016 when Donald Trump won which would be seen as a realignment election, but we don’t know to which extent it had a lasting/permanent impact. It could
be seen as a realignment election because: It was the first example since Eisenhower in 1952 of victory by a political outsider as Trump had no previous political experience, it was a victory for populism
over experience and mainstream politicians, it revealed the growing gap between the urban multiethnic USA and the white rural USA as each voted in record numbers for their candidate, and the main
change was among less well-educated white people in the Upper Midwest states like Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin, for example white voters went for Trump 62%-33%, a considerable improvement from
2012 when Mitt Romney won 57% of the white vote. The largest shift in a county was in Monroe County, where the Republican vote shot up from 52% in 2012 to 72% in 2016. There was some suggestion
that white people in the Upper Midwest/Rust Belt states might be voting more like white people in the South, i.e. Republican partly due to the decline in trade unions which traditionally played a key role in
getting the white blue-collar worker vote for the Democrats. This election was significant because the Republicans accomplished a clean sweep of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives,
in the middle of significant changes to their support base. Trump won in the typically Democrat Rust Belt states like Ohio and Michigan, representing a change in the loyalties of white blue-collar voters in
support of his industrial strategy, promising more jobs and trade. It was his narrow victory in states like Wisconsin that led him to win the election, despite losing the popular vote. Trump also did well in the
northeast, coming close in New Hampshire, Minnesota and Maine. Even though the Republicans gained remarkable control at state level, holding 33 governorships and control of 32 state legislatures, they
went on to lose control of the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterms, so it is yet to see if the apparent shift towards a new populist conservatism is sustained/maintained. However, it may not be a
true realignment election because the 3 rust belt states that flipped for Trump in 2016 reverted back to the Democrats in 2020, but the swings were small in both cases. Also because it became clear that in
2020 the Republicans were continuing to lose ground in Arizona and Georgia, largely due to demographic changes.
Explain and analyse three ways why the 1932 presidential election is considered to be a realignment election
One reason why the 1932 presidential election is considered to be a realigning election is due to the New Deal Coalition. This was Franklin D.Roosevelt’s solution to the Great Depression that began in
1929. The New Deal Coalition was an inclusive proposal in which he would provide affirmative action to minorities. He attracted members of trade unions, the working class and blue collar workers. This
was very significant because this inclusivity is still a defining feature of the Democratic Party and it caused many people, particularly African-Americans – who were greatly impacted by the Great
Depression – to pledge allegiance to the party.
Another reason why the 1932 presidential election is considered to be a realigning election is because of the New Deal Social and Economic Programmes. These programmes helped to rebuild the
economy by creating more jobs and stimulating industrial production. One example is the Public Works Administration which helped to build services like hospitals and schools, using federal funds. This
was more significant than the New Deal Coalition because it lasted for decades, whilst the coalition eventually fell down. These programmes were important in recovering the state of the country. This
almost definitely made people realign to the Democratic Party because his aim was to help people, socially and economically, whilst the Republican Party did not.
The last reason why the 1932 presidential election is considered to be a realigning election is because of the presidential use of the media. Roosevelt wisely used the media to his advantage. His inaugural
address was delivered to millions on the radio and he clearly outlined his aims to help the American economy. He did everything that he said he would, especially by ‘put[ting] people to work’. This was
somewhat significant as he had to give listeners a clear indication of what was to come, but I don’t think it was detrimental in making people realign to the Democratic Party.
Explain and analyse three ways in which the 1968 Presidential Election was a realigning election?
One way in which the 1968 Presidential Election was a realigning election is due to Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’. This was Nixon’s initiative to appeal to the traditional, conservative, white population in the
South who felt they were abandoned when civil rights legislation was being made. A lot of White Southerners, especially those in the Deep South were against liberal views on abortion, homosexuality and
civil rights. They were mainly against desegregation. George Wallace was a prominent figure who was a third-party segregationist and attracted this group. This was somewhat significant because the
‘Solid South’ abandoned the Democrat’s to return to their old-fashioned, outdated views. Many conservative Democrats in the southern states felt neglected even with the New Deal, so this election caused
them to revert back to more traditional ideas.
Another way in which the 1968 Presidential Election was a realigning election was because it was amid increasing social and political problems in the USA. One popular issue was crime. Nixon was the
candidate who wanted to ensure law and order. It led to political dilemmas such as Vietnam into a simple and clear legal position in which crime is wrong and criminals must be punished for their actions.
This was fairly significant as it ensured voters that safety and security would be provided. This was especially important after the assassination of Martin Luther King in which huge riots broke out. Nixon
wanted to help regain a civil society which led voters to realign and support him and his party.
The last way in which the 1968 presidential election was a realigning election is due to the neutral position that Nixon maintained. While Humphrey and the Democrats were extreme socialists, Nixon was a
centrist which allowed him to appeal to both sides of the political spectrum. Although he did not support the Johnson-Humphrey Administration policy on the war, he didn’t have his own policy. This worked
out in his favour because as long as the war continued to go awry, the people who wanted to leave and the people who wanted it to continue would both find Nixon’s stance agreeable. This was significant
as his stance was preferred to an extreme one, so more people would support his neutrality instead of an extreme political leader.
Explain and analyse why the 2016 presidential election is considered to be a realigning election?
One way in which the 2016 presidential election is considered to be a realignment election due to Trump’s acceptable, yet extreme, ideology. Donald Trump became one of the most outspoken and
opinionated political figures in 2016. One of his most famous proposals was by banning people from Muslim-majority countries to prevent terrorism. Although this was undeniably discriminatory, it was
accepted by Republicans who felt it was necessary in order to prevent terrorism. This was very significant because it not only changed the public’s perception of Trump but also the Republican Party and
what it stood for. As it only ignited right-wing extreme conservative ideologies.
Another way in which the 2016 presidential election is considered to be a realigning election is due to the split in the Democratic Party. Senator Bernie Sanders was popular amongst young adults, while
Hillary Clinton was more popular amongst middle-aged, middle-class Americans. This was partially significant because Clinton was not only trying to win against Trump, but also Sanders which made it
even harder for her to gain office. It was significant because there had never been such a split in the party which led there to be a clash between young and older Democrat’s. Many were dissatisfied with
Clinton so they decided to vote for the republicans instead.
The last way in which the 2016 Presidential Election was a realigning election was due to the media. The televised debates did not shed light on policy detail, but instead on the personalities of the leaders.
The media also released and published Donald Trump’s ‘groping tapes’ and Clinton’s suspicious emails. This was very important and significant because had these not been published there may not have
been a realignment as it greatly impacted the loyalty Democrat’s had to Clinton. After the email scandal, many departed her party and decided to vote for Trump.
Task 6: Explain and analyse three factors which influenced voting in the 2020 presidential election
One factor which influenced voting in the 2020 presidential election was religion. Religion is very divided in America. Democrat’s were traditionally Protestants, Jews and Catholics, while the Republicans
were usually Evangelical Christians and some Catholics. One example are Jews. Jewish voters strongly supported Joe Biden. Biden received 77% of the Jewish vote, while Trump only got 21%. Jewish
voters were primarily concerned with the coronavirus pandemic and climate change which is why Biden was the preferred president, instead of Trump. This is significant because if the president supports
or agrees with what the marginalised group wants, then it is more likely that they will secure their vote. Religion always influenced voting in an election.
Another factor which influenced voting in the 2020 presidential election was gender. Men are more likely to vote for the Republican Party, while women are more likely to vote for the Democrats. This is
because the Democratic Party’s aims and policies are more in line with the priorities of women. This is significant because if the Republican Party was to adopt more policies that’s support women like
abortion then they would probably gain more votes. But, Biden and his party support equality and abortion which makes them more likeable to a woman.
The last factor which influenced voting in the 2020 presidential election was race. White voters (60% of the US population) were more likely to vote for the Republican Party during this election. Republican
policies appeal to a lot of white voters irrespective of their socioeconomic background. On the other hand, Democrat’s received 75% of the African American vote which was the lowest since 2004, but still
relatively high. Trump only received 12% in 2020 (a small increase from 8% in 2016). More members of the black community voted for Trump because they thought he was more likely to bring about
economic prosperity and financial security. This is extremely significant because race plays a huge role in American politics as different parties have different opinions on the black community and how to
help them. The Democrat Party will always have the support of the black community because it represents them socially and economically, while many fear the republicans do not.
Task 7: Explain and analyse three factors which influence turnout in U.S. Elections
