RATIONAL VOTER, COMPLEX WORLD: EXPLAINING “IRRATIONAL” VOTING BEHAVIOR IN THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION Eric “Harry” Brisson POSC 212: Analyzing Politics May 1st, 2010
INTRODUCTION For any government to be successful in reflecting the needs and desires of its constituents, it is crucial that (1.) its constituents are provided means of influencing policy and that (2.) its constituents use these means effectively. In the United States, the means provided to constituents are elections; however, there is debate within political science as to whether or not voters are able to use elections effectively to create the government that will best serve them. In the 2004 presidential election, for example, 56.6% of voters voted against their perceived interest with regard to environmental policy (as shown in Figure 1). Did these voters act irrationally, threatening the very foundation of American democracy? Or is there something more complex about the nature of voting behavior that could perhaps explain why a majority of voters would choose a candidate whose policy preferences they perceive as more distant than their alternative? This paper explores the factors that contributed to “irrational” voting behavior in the 2004 presidential election, dividing them into three categories: biographical, behavioral, and ideological. These three categories serve to allow us to
Brisson 2 better understand where the roots of “irrational” voting behavior truly lie – in a voter’s background, behavior, or beliefs. In isolating the cause of irrational voting, we are able to better understand what can be done to address it. Through the use of regression, my results suggest that a voter’s ideological stance is most influential in their decisions to vote in an “irrational” way, casting doubt on the very idea that these votes are irrational at all. This paper posits that many voters vote against their interests strategically, and do so only in pursuit of other, more highly prioritized interests.
DATA STATEMENT The 2004 National Election Study entailed both a pre-election interview and a post-election re-interview with a total of 1,212 cases. The 70-minute pre-election survey went into the field September 7th, approximately eight weeks before Election Day. No interviewing was conducted on Election Day, November 2nd. The 65-minute post-election study went into the field the day after the election, November 3rd, and remained in the field until December 20th. The sample for the NES is based on a multi-stage area probability sample. Identification of the 2004 NES sample respondents was conducted using a four stage sampling process: a primary stage sampling of U.S. Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) or New England County Metropolitan Areas (NECMAs) and non-MSA counties, followed by a second stage sampling of area segments, a third stage sampling of housing units within sampled area segments, and concluding with the random selection of a single respondent from selected housing units. The Pre-Election Study response rate was
Brisson 3 .66. Of the 1,212 respondents interviewed in the Pre-Election Study, 1,066 completed Post-Election interviews for an overall response rate of 0.88.
ANALYSIS Using the data collected in the 2004 National Election Study, voter rationality was operationalized by looking at specific issues (nine in total) and determining whether or not a voter chose the candidate whose preferences she or he perceived as closer to his or her own. From this, we are able to determine how frequently voters exhibit the “irrational” behavior we intend to study. Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate the percentages of voters who voted consistently with their own opinions. Figure 1 demonstrates how as issue importance decreases, so does the probability of “rational” voting behavior, while Figure 2 demonstrates the differences in “rational” voting behavior between the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, suggesting other factors are at play as voters change which issues inspire rational voting from year to year. Figure 3 continues to demonstrate the relationship between “irrational” voting behavior and issue importance by plotting the percent of voters voting “irrationally” against the mean importance ratings for each individual issue. Both these lines demonstrate that as issues become more important, “irrational” voting behavior becomes less frequent. To explain overall voter rationality, an index (“Voter IQ”) was created incorporating the voter’s rationality and allocated importance with nine separate
Brisson 4 issues. As long as there were at least five issues for which voters provided meaningful responses, the index was calculated using the following equation:
Figure 4 shows the distribution of scores for this index, with most scores falling in between 60 points and 90 points. An OLS regression was run to investigate key influences to this index (Table 7). In the regression, the various independent variables were divided up into three separate categories: biographical, behavioral, and ideological.
Biographical Factors These factors included education level, income level, race, gender, and age. The first two of these factors, education and income, were included because they are influenced by society and could theoretically be modified by policy to improve voter rationality should they be significant. Education level was calculated in years, and income was calculated in brackets. The final three, however, are personal and not influenced by policy, but were included to hold them constant in analysis. Should these variables be significant, it would be difficult to address them directly. Gender was calculated with a positive correlation signifying higher female voter rationality, and a negative correlation signifying higher male voter rationality. Race was
Brisson 5 calculated as a positive correlation signifying non-whites voting more rationally, and a negative correlation signifying whites voting more rationally.
Behavioral Factors These factors were seen as factors in control of the individual. Should these factors prove most significant, this would indicate that voters themselves have the capacity to improve their own voter rationality through a change in behavior. These factors were political awareness, political engagement, and news attentiveness. Political awareness was calculated using responses to questions asking respondents to identify four political officials by position held. For each official the respondents were able to correctly identify, they were given a point, resulting in a four-point scale for political awareness. Respondents needed to respond to all questions for their index to be valid. Political engagement used nine questions regarding participation in political activities, such as protests or political discussions, and granted a point for each. As long as valid answers were provided for at least five of the questions, their information was considered valid. The total affirmative responses was divided by the total valid responses to ensure that those that simply answered more questions did not have their results inflated. News attentiveness used 14 questions regarding the use of news sources. Some questions were frequency based, and those that were not had affirmative responses multiplied by five to increase their weight in the index. Respondents needed to respond to all questions for their index to be valid.
Brisson 6
Ideological Factors Three ideological factors were chosen to explore the effect of personal beliefs and opinions on one’s ability to vote rationally. The three variables chosen were position on a left-right ideological scale, extremism on a left-right ideological scale, and the value placed in political issues. Position on a left-right ideological scale could indicate whether those in the opposing party of that in power are willing to make more compromises in their voting behavior than others. It also could indicate which party has a clearer platform that allows its partisans to make fewer sacrifices in voting. In this analysis, respondents identified themselves on an 11-point scale from left to right in the National Election Study data. Extremism on a left-right ideological scale would demonstrate whether extremists found it easier to choose a candidate nearer to all their values than nonextremists. For example, a candidate more conservative on all issues than both the Democratic and Republican candidates should easily be able to settle on the Republican candidate. This information was calculated finding the distance from the moderate 5 in the aforementioned 11-point scale. The “Political Values” index was calculated by adding up the answers to nine questions on nine different issues about their importance. Each question was on a five point scale, and the total was added up so those with a higher index found the most issues most important and those with a lower index found the least issues
Brisson 7 most important. This could show that those who find political issues most important perhaps put the most time into making a rational decision.
In the results, it was demonstrated that ideological factors were most significant, particularly the “Extremism” index, with a significance of below .05%. Also significant were the “Political Values” index and, to a lesser degree, the leftright scale. The behavioral factors were close to significant, particularly the “News Attentiveness” and “Political Awareness” indexes. The biographical factors, however, were not at all significant.
To explore the role of ideology further, the relationship between the number of rational choices sacrificed was examined separating respondents by party identification, which is seen in Figure 3. The results are significant with a X2 of 51.56 and a significance level of below .05%. Note the “U-shape” in the data for those making no irrational choices as well as for those making one or two irrational choices. Compare this with the mountain-shape found for those making five or more irrational choices.
Issue-based rational and irrational voting was also explored further in Table 3, as the factors applied to the overall index were then applied to find how they affected voter rationality in specific cases. Changes were made with the “ideological
Brisson 8 factors” category, using three new variables: Party Identification, Strength of Party Identification, and Issue Priority. Party Identification was calculated using a seven-point scale that respondents used to identify themselves, lower numbers being more liberal and higher numbers being more conservative. This is significant in determining whether some parties were better at ensuring cohesion on certain issues or not. Strength of Party Identification demonstrates whether extremists have an easier time voting, as we saw in the earlier regression. Issue Priority used responses placing individual issues on a five-point scale, and then calculating the difference from the mean importance of all responses from a given respondent. This was to ensure that those simply found everything important were put in balance. The prediction would be that we would see this highly correlated, as voters sacrifice on issues they find relatively less important while voting in accordance with the policy preferences they find most important.
DISCUSSION In Table 5, we see a key role being played by ideology, more so by the extremeness of a subject’s political opinions than by the side of the political spectrum with which they associate themselves. This relationship is clearly demonstrated in Figure 5, as most independents make sacrifices on more than half of the issues in question. The transformation in shape from the “valley” to the “hill” is a clear visual representation of the role of partisan extremeness in the crafting of rational voting behavior. This is likely not because those who are extremely
Brisson 9 partisan are more intelligent and rational, but rather simply because moderate voters have to make more compromises than their heavily partisan counterparts. Figure 5 also hints at the slight improvement in rationality that one finds as they move from the right to the left, which we see demonstrated in Table 5. This could be a result of the Democratic party having a more unified party and a more consistent platform than the Republican party, or it could also be a result of Kerry being a new candidate compared to Bush, so left-leaning voters spent more time actually processing their voting decision than did those who voted for Bush. It is also worth noting that there were weak correlations within the OLS model with political knowledge and news attentiveness, which are rather optimistic. As opposed to the influence of ideology, which unfairly discriminates against those whose policy views do not fit in line with the arbitrary agendas of current parties in the American political system, the influence of behaviors is inherently democratic and empowering. It suggests that individuals can simply brush up on current events and become more effective voters.
Issue-Specific Voting Behavior Influences Table 7 reveals some interesting observations regarding the presence “irrational” voting behavior, primarily the consistent influence of issue priority, political values, and gender. Issue priority and political values seem to be the strongest influences, which seems to suggest that “irrational” voting is in fact quite deliberate. Gender, however, is peculiar; women significantly underperform men in terms of voter rationality with regard to every issue except particularly female-
Brisson 10 salient issues such as abortion, women’s issues, and gun control. This is perhaps as a result of cognitive differences in how decisions are made by men and women. Education is also found to significantly correlate with whether or not voters vote “rationally” with regard to the government provision of jobs and abortion. Those with more years of education make decisions that are more consistent with these beliefs, which can be problematic since there is such a wide disparity of education in the United States and there are many areas with weak education programs. This means that our society puts some members in a better position to represent their own interests through the provision of more education, which seems to be inherently undemocratic. Income level holds some influence, and this problematic for many of the same reasons. Family income level is found to correlate with a voters’ voting consistently with their jobs and defense preferences, with those with higher family incomes voting more consistently with their policy preferences. This may be because they have access to more resources and can therefore feel more confident with regard to their decisions. Race and age also pop up as an influence to voter effectiveness with regard to diplomacy, with non-whites voting less “rationally” than whites and older people voting less “rationally” than young people. These variables, along with education level and income level, are concerning because they are not factors that can be easily changed, and some of them cannot be really changed at all. It is fundamentally unfair for certain populations to be less able to represent their interests rationally in
Brisson 11 elections than others, and to correct for these problems it would be necessary to provide more public resources, particularly education and income redistribution.
The behavioral factors hypothesis had only weak results; political awareness and political engagement demonstrated relationships in the jobs and abortion issue areas, respectively. It is always desirable for these factors to have a strong influence, as they are easy characteristics to develop, but no such strong and consistent relationship seems to exist.
Party identification is particularly strong in influencing subjects’ votes with regard to abortion. Liberals, according to my regression, were more likely to vote consistently with their policy preferences, even with issue priority held constant. This could be due to Democrats, at this time, being out of power therefore willing to compromise.
Guns, Abortion, and the Environment The model for voter rationality prediction explains some variables better than others, with R2’s ranging from .168 for jobs to .028 for gun control. The models, though far from perfect, do provide insight into the role played by policy preference and ideology as key determinants of a voter’s ability to vote rationally. Three variables were found to not have significant correlation with “Political Values” and “Issue Priority”: guns, abortion, and the environment. If more information were available with regard to the amount of coverage these issues had
Brisson 12 in the elections, I correlate that with these results, imagining the result to be that these issues were not heavily covered by the candidates or the media, and in turn voters had difficulty making rational decisions when faced with them.
Do Rational Decisions Produce Ideal Outcomes? It is also worth noting that all this data focuses on the idea of rational decision, but not necessarily on rational outcomes. A second study examining what factors affect what factors impact perceived positions of candidates would perhaps reveal correlations that seemed less significant in this model. Issue importance, though, seems to be the key factor in impacting which issues voters decide act rationally, although for them to be able to do so they must be provided with accurate and reliable information about the candidates that are campaigning.
CONCLUSION In contrast to the idea that voters behave irrationally, my model -- finding “Political Values” and “Issue Priority” as most significant indicators of issue-based rationality –suggests the opposite: (1.) voters who are value politics generally make more rational decisions, and (2.) voters vote strategically, sacrificing on issues that are not as important to gain on those that are of higher relative value. Understanding that voters who find political issues more important make more rational decisions suggests that we should do what we can to allow citizens appreciate the importance of political policy in shaping their lives. I would like to
Brisson 13 conduct further research examining what social factors shape “Political Values,” and then making policy proposals that reflect the findings of that research. The second point, that voters sacrifice strategically, exposes a flaw in our voting system. Since many voters have to compromise to choose a candidate, those whose personal policy preferences arbitrarily do not reflect that of a given party are forced to sacrifice more often than those who do not as is shown in Figure 3. Exploring ways to better include all perspectives and reduce sacrifices would be a prudent discussion in light of these results. Finally, reflecting on the irrationality found in guns, abortions, and the environment, campaigns should provide more clear information on all issues that matter to voters. This would hopefully reduce the amount of “irrational” voting behavior, and provide a more effective and more inclusive democracy.
APPENDIX A: TABLES TABLE 1 Irrational Voting Behavior in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections
Issue Abortion Black Aid Defense Spending Diplomacy Environment Government Spending Gun Control Job Creation Women’s Rights
Percent Voting “Irrationally” Democratic Candidate Republican Candidate 2000 2004 2000 2004 40.2% 36.2% 40.6% 47.3% 43.1% 35.1% 31.3% 37.1% 41.5% 29.7% 38.1% 27.8% 35.1% 43.7% 41.0% 54.3% 37.4% 58.9% 28.9% 30.5% 28.5% 39.4% 30.2% 41.7% 40.3% 26.3% 24.5% 31.0% 21.0% 39.3%
Sources: ANES 2000, ANES 2004
TABLE 2 Issue Importance and Voter Irrationality
Issue Abortion ……in 2000 ……in 2004*** Black Aid ……in 2004*** Defense Spending ……in 2004*** Diplomacy ……in 2004*** Environment ……in 2004*** Government Spending ……in 2004*** Gun Control ……in 2000* ……in 2004 Job Creation ……in 2004*** Women’s Rights ……in 2004**
High
Issue Importance Medium
Low
Statistical Significance Chi2 Significance
38.1% 30.1%
43.9% 39.4%
41.0% 40.4%
3.097 9.430
.213 .009
28.2%
35.9%
50.9%
33.495
.000
17.8%
40.8%
60.2%
108.156
.000
32.6%
50.8%
75.0%
59.286
.000
50.1%
61.3%
69.4%
20.818
.000
21.4%
40.6%
53.2%
62.382
.000
27.2% 39.8%
31.2% 39.7%
27.2% 46.6%
4.717 1.570
.095 .461
22.8%
33.4%
54.7%
40.293
.000
28.1%
31.8%
40.8%
7.198
.027
Sources: ANES 2000, ANES 2004 Significance: * < .10 ** < .05, and *** < .01. Issue Importance collapsed from five-option scale; “Extremely Important” and “Very Important” become “High”, “Somewhat Important” becomes “Medium”, and “Not Too Important” and “Not at All Important” become “Low”. 2000 statistics omitted due to absence of data.
Brisson 15
TABLE 3 Issue Importance and Voter Irrationality in 2004, by Vote KERRY VOTERS Issue Black Aid Defense Environment Abortion Jobs Gov't Spending Gun Control Diplomacy Women's Rights
BUSH VOTERS Mean Importance*
Percent Voting “Irrationally”
2.49 2.64 2.78 2.84 2.88 2.95 2.96 3.13 3.17
35.1% 29.7% 54.3% 36.2% 26.3% 28.9% 39.4% 35.1% 21.0%
Issue
Mean Importance*
Black Aid Environment Gun Control Women's Rights Jobs Gov't Spending Abortion Defense Diplomacy
2.32 2.50 2.68 2.77 2.79 2.79 2.89 2.98 3.09
Source: American National Election Study 2004. *Mean scores on 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (“Not at all important”) to 5 (“Extremely important”). See Appendix C for coding of variables.
TABLE 4 Variable Descriptives Issue “Voter IQ” Education Race Income Gender Political Awareness Political Engagement News Attentiveness Left-Right Scale Extremism Political Values
N Min. 707 19.51 1210 1.00 1153 0.00 1070 1.00 1212 1.00 1055 0.00 1066 0.00 710 0.00 917 0.00 917 0.00 1206 .16
Source: American National Election Study 2004. See Appendix C for full coding of variables.
Max. Mean Std. Dev. 100.00 74.14 14.118 17.00 13.69 2.403 1.00 .25 .435 23.00 14.94 6.001 2.00 1.53 .499 4.00 1.93 1.146 1.00 .27 .213 70.00 36.97 17.175 10.00 5.83 2.328 5.00 1.87 1.616 .80 .55 .113
Percent Voting “Irrationally” 37.1% 58.9% 41.7% 39.3% 31.0% 30.5% 47.3% 27.8% 43.7%
Brisson 16
TABLE 5 Factors Influencing Overall Voter Rationality (“Voter IQ”) in the 2004 Elections B
Std. Dev
Sig
Constant
75.484
7.269
.000
Biographical Factors Education Level Income Level Race Gender
.197 .042 -1.802 .262
.361 .147 1.841 1.523
.585 .774 .329 .864
Behavioral Factors Political Awareness* Political Engagement News Attentiveness*
-1.376 -4.320 .139
.816 3.488 .072
.093 .216 .056
Ideological Factors Left-Right Scale** Extremism*** Political Values
-.758 1.900 11.199
.320 .512 7.001
.019 .000 .111
Source: ANES 2004 (R2=.082, SEE=12.819) Significance: * < .10, ** < .05, and *** < .01.
TABLE 6 Correlations Among Rational and “Irrational” Voting Behaviors in 2004
Abortion Abortion Black Aid Defense Diplomacy Environment Gun Control Gov't Spending Jobs Women’s Issues
1 .103** .133** .331** .040 -.005 .115** .086** .196**
Black Aid .103** 1 .232** .148** .171** .187** .277** .326** .278**
Defense Diplomacy Environment .133** .232** 1 .292** .132** .051 .276** .218** .196**
Source: American National Election Study 2004. Significance: * < .05, and ** < .01. See Appendix C for full coding of variables.
.331** .148** .292** 1 .088** .027 .168** .109** .153**
.040 .171** .132** .088** 1 .097** .144** .167** .175**
Gun Gov't Control Spending -.005 .115** .187** .277** .051 .276** .027 .168** .097** .144** 1 .083** .083** 1 ** .118 .304** .189** .264**
Jobs .086** .326** .218** .109** .167** .118** .304** 1 .246**
Women's Issues .196** .278** .196** .153** .175** .189** .264** .246** 1
Brisson 17
TABLE 7 Factors Influencing Voter Rationality in the 2004 Election, by Issue Diplomacy
Spending
Guns
Jobs
Abortion
Defense
Environment
Black Aid
Statistics Constant R2 SEE
.780 .140 .39941
.681 .143 .38525
1.172 .028 .48221
.588 .168 .39946
.434 .081 .42347
.904 .104 .39554
.789 .050 .49371
.727 .097 .43386
Biographical Factors Education Level Income Level Race Gender Age
.001 .053 -.107** -.030 -.136***
.078 .080 -.012 -.123** .042
-.049 .009 .073 -.054 -.027
.140*** .063** .101 -.122** -.051
.138 ** -.034 .004 -.022 -.054
-.002 .096* -.020 -.088* -.021
.076 .006 -.020 -.104** .002
.046 .044 .086 -.131*** .045
Behavioral Factors Political Awareness Political Engagement News Attentiveness
.053 .075 .098*
-.054 .034 .072
.030 -.012 -.058
.141** -.010 .016
-.023 .107** .002
.045 .051 .036
-.018 -.052 -.014
.025 .047 .034
Ideological Factors Party Identification Party ID Strength Political Values Issue Priority
-.084 .101* .110** .176***
.092* -.041 .162*** .230***
-.074 -.103* .046 .031
.010 .086 .191*** .135***
-.273*** -.084 -.024 .036
.014 -.028 .162*** .157***
-.003 .072 .164*** .059
.080 .064 .165*** .104**
Source: American National Election Study 2004. All coefficients standardized to facilitate comparison. Significance: * < .10, ** < .05, and *** < .01. Issues listed left to right by issue importance mean scores, from most important to least important. See appendix for coding of variables.
Brisson 18
FIGURE 1 Voter Rationality in the 2004 Presidential Election, by Issue
90.0% Bush
Linear (Kerry)
Linear (Bush)
80.0% 70.0% 60.0%
10.0% 0.0%
Source: American National Election Study 2004. Issues listed left to right by issue importance mean scores, from most important to least important. See Appendix C for coding of variables.
41.1%
62.9%
64.9%
72.2%
70.3% 52.7%
45.7%
20.0%
63.8%
69.0%
73.7%
58.3%
60.6%
69.5%
71.1%
30.0%
56.3%
40.0%
60.7%
79.0%
50.0%
64.9%
Percentage Voting Consistent with Own Position
Kerry
Brisson 19 FIGURE 2 Voters Voting “Rationally” in the 2000 and 2004 Elections, by Issue 80.0% Gore (2000)
Bush (2000)
Kerry (2004)
Bush (2004)
70.0%
60.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% Abortion Source: American National Election Study 2004. Issues listed left to right in alphabetical order. See Appendix C for coding of variables.
Black Aid
Defense
Environment
Gun Control
Jobs
69.0%
73.7%
75.5% 59.7%
58.3%
60.6%
69.8%
71.5% 41.1%
45.7%
62.6%
59.0%
70.3%
61.9%
58.5%
62.9%
64.9%
68.7%
56.9%
52.7%
63.8%
59.4%
30.0%
59.8%
40.0%
72.2%
50.0%
Brisson 20 FIGURE 3 “Irrational” Voting Behavior and Mean Issue Importance in 2004 60.0% Series1 Bush Voters Kerry Voters Series2 Linear(Series1) (Bush) Linear Linear (Kerry) Linear (Series2)
Percent Voting "Irrationally"
55.0% 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 2.20
2.40
2.60
Less Important
2.80 3.00 Mean Importance Rating
Source: American National Election Study 2004. Values available in Table 3: Issue Importance and Voter Rationality, by Vote. See Appendix C for coding of variables.
Score Frequency
FIGURE 4 “Voter IQ” Index Score Distribution
“Voter IQ” Index Score Source: American National Election Study 2004. More on “Vote IQ” in Table 4: Variable Descriptives. See Appendix C for coding of variables.
3.20 More Important
3.40
Brisson 21
FIGURE 5 Strength of Party Identification and Voter “Irrationality” 50.0%
40.0% Strong Democrat
35.0%
Weak Democrat Independent Democrat
30.0%
Independent Democrat
.0% None
One or Two
Three or Four
Five or More
Number of "Irrational" Components to Voter's Decision Source: American National Election Survey 2004. X2=51.560, p<.0005 Issues considered: Abortion, Black Aid, Defense Spending, Diplomacy, Environment, Government Spending, Gun Control, Jobs, and Women’s Issues. See Appendix C for coding of variables.
18.4%
29.3%
26.6%
45.7% 26.5%
20.6%
29.3%
36.8%
34.7%
38.3%
30.9%
29.1%
33.5%
26.8%
37.4%
7.4%
2.7%
6.3%
1.2%
9.0%
5.0%
7.3%
10.0%
33.3%
29.9%
15.0%
28.9%
Strong Republican
20.0%
22.2%
42.8%
Weak Republican
35.4%
Independent Republican
25.0%
9.8%
Percent of those Democrats, Republicans, or Independents
45.0%
Brisson 22
APPENDIX C: VARIABLE CODING AND SYNTAX
Issue Rationality Heuristic This is determined by comparing a voter’s self-placement on an issue with their placement of the two candidates. If they vote for the candidate whose position is closer to their own, then they receive a “1” for voting “rationally”; if not, they receive a “0” for voting “irrationally”. In case of a tie, the vote is considered rational and they receive a “1”. This is calculated for the following issues: Abortion, Black Aid, Defense Spending, Diplomacy, Environment, Government Spending, Gun Control, Jobs, and Women’s Issues. Issue Importance Ranking Each ANES respondent was asked to state their perceived importance of the following issues: Abortion, Black Aid, Defense Spending, Diplomacy, Environment, Government Spending, Gun Control, Jobs, and Women’s Issues. Importance was coded as follows: 1. Not at all important 2. Not too important 3. Somewhat important 4. Very important 5. Extremely important Voter IQ The variable used to describe overall voter rationality combines the two was a variable I call “Voter IQ,” which uses the following equation to calculate an index for each respondent:
Brisson 23 This equation gives each voter a score out of 100, evaluating their ability to vote rationally. Essentially, it takes a voterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Issue Rationality and multiplies it by self-identified importance on a five-point scale. This number is then adjusted by dividing by the total of all issue importance responses, to ensure that those just find everything important do not have higher scores. This statistic is considered valid so long as they have valid information for at least seven of the nine issues. Here are two examples of how this indicator is calculated: RESPONDENT #148 (PRE CASE ID) Abortion
Diplomacy
Government Spending
Importance = 5
Importance = 4
Importance = 5
Rationality = 1
Rationality = 1
Rationality = 1
Black Aid
Environment
Jobs
Importance = 5
Importance = 4
Importance = 5
Rationality = 1
Rationality = 0
Rationality = 1
Defense
Gun Control
Womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Issues
Importance = 4
Importance = 5
Importance = 5
Rationality = 1
Rationality = 0
Rationality = 1
Brisson 24 RESPONDENT #172 (PRE CASE ID) Abortion
Diplomacy
Government Spending
Importance = 4
Importance = 4
Importance = 4
Rationality = 1
Rationality = 1
Rationality = 1
Black Aid
Environment
Jobs
Importance = 4
Importance = 4
Importance = 3
Rationality = 1
Rationality = 1
Rationality = 1
Defense
Gun Control
Women’s Issues
Importance = 4
Importance = 4
Importance = 4
Rationality = 1
Rationality = 1
Rationality = 0
As can be seen, with just a score of rationality-importance products, Respondent #148 receives a higher index (34 points compared to #172’s 31 points) simply because he identified all issues as more important, granting mostly 5’s while Respondent #172 granted mostly 4’s. By dividing the sum of the rationality-importance products by the sum of importance ratings, this index is adjusted so that it will not fluctuate if the respondent simply has a tendency to allocate more importance to all issues. As shown, Respondent #172 then receives a score of 88.57 while Respondent #148 receives a score of 80.95. It is also important to divide by the sum of importance ratings so that when not all nine issues are incorporated into the index, the index will not be artificially lowered.
Brisson 25
Race Respondents to the 2004 ANES responded to the following question, identifying as one of the following 1. Black 2. Asian 3. Native American 4. Hispanic 5. White (no mention of other race) 7. Other Race was then recoded as follows: 0. White (Including “5. White”) 1. Non-White (Including “1. Black”, “2. Asian”, “3. Native American”, “4. Hispanic”, and “7. Other”) Gender Respondents were asked to self-identify their gender, coded as follows: 1. Male 2. Female Income Income is family income (self-reported), and is defined as follows: 1. None or less than $2,999
9. $15,000-$16,999
2. $3,000 - $4,999
10. $17,000-$19,999
3. $3,000 -$4,999
11. $20,000-$21,999
4. $5,000 -$6,999
12. $22,000-$24,999
5. $7,000 -$8,999
13. $25,000-$29,999
6. $9,000 -$10,999
14. $30,000-$34,999
7. $11,000-$12,999
15. $35,000-$39,999
8. $13,000-$14,999
16. $40,000-$44,999
Brisson 26 17. $45,000-$49,999
21. $80,000-$89,999
18. $50,000-$59,999
22. $90,000-$104,999
19. $60,000-$69,999
23. $105,000-$119,000
20. $70,000-$79,999
24. $120,000 and over
Age Age is provided in years (self-reported). Education Education is provided in years of education (self-reported). Political Awareness Respondents were asked to identify the following by position: 1. Chief Justice of Supreme Court
3. Vice President of United States
2. Prime Minister of England
4. Speaker of the House
Each correct response was given one point. Incorrect responses or “Don’t Know” were given no points. Results were only considered if valid answers were provided for all four questions. Political Engagement Respondents were given one point for each of the following behaviors: 1. Attending Committee Meeting About an Issue 2. Worked in a Committee to Solve a Problem 3. Contacted a Public Official to Express Views 4. Attended a Protest 5. Attended a Campaign Rally 6. Displayed a Candidates Sign or Button 7. Discussed Politics
Brisson 27 Each correct response was given one point. Incorrect responses or â&#x20AC;&#x153;Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Knowâ&#x20AC;? were given no points. Results only considered if valid answers provided for at least five questions. Left-Right Scale Respondent identified themselves on an 11-point scale ranging from left (0) to right (11). Extremism Distance from 5 (moderate position) on aforementioned 11-point scale. Political Values Sum of importance rankings on all available issues divided by the number of importance rankings given (given that at least 7 responses are provided). Higher responses find more importance. In short, the mean of all issue importance rankings given from a respondent. Issue Priority Importance Score adjusted against Mean Importance Score to determine deviation
Brisson 28
APPENDIX D: WORKS CITED The National Election Studies (www.umich.edu/~nes). 2001. THE 2000 NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY [dataset]. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies. The National Election Studies (www.umich.edu/~nes). 2005. THE 2004 NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY [dataset]. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies.