Political Participation

How, Who and Why

Participation Definition:

“Those activities of citizens that attempt to influence the structure of government, the selection of government officials, or the policies of government.”

Conway, Ch. 1

How we participate Methods of participation:

Voting Contributing time: volunteering Contributing money: donations Running for office

Voting: Do most Americans Vote?

No. A little more than 50% of the Voting Age Population (VAP) votes in any given presidential election, a little less than 50% for midterm Congressional elections.

Lowest turnout? 1996, reelection of Bill Clinton, turnout was 54.2% of VAP

Turnout was always above 90% in the late 1800’s, the “Golden Era” of parties and participation.

Some facts Support in the modern era:

1964, LBJ won with 67% of vote, but only gets 37.8% of VAP.

1992, Bill Clinton got 43% of the vote, but just 23.9% of VAP (1996, he got 24.1% of VAP with 49% of the vote).

In 1994, Republicans take control of Congress with appx 24% of support of the VAP.

What about “mandates” from the people? Does turnout matter?

Volunteering: Time Who volunteers?

The elderly and the better-off tend to volunteer and spend more time in community organizations.

Why?

Paradox: People with more education tend to vote

more than people without education, but turnout has decreased since 1960, even though education levels have increased.

What happened? Voting age population changed. Efficacy fell substantially. Decline in social capital.

Social Capital What is it?

Social capital consists of “the features of social life – networks, norms, and trust – that enable participants to act together more effectively.”

Bowling Alone - Robert Putnum

What does it do? Motivates people to participate in their

communities, to get involved in political environment.

Social Capital What has caused its decline?

Changes in family structure What changes have taken place since the 1960’s?

How much has this caused the decline in social capital?

Probably not much, Putnam says, because married people tend to be “homebodies” who concentrate on personal family matters to the exclusion of community affairs.

Not sure I agree, but that’s what he says.

Social Capital Changes in family environment have

contributed about 10% of the decline in social capital

Other factors: Suburbanization, and urban sprawl:

Another 10% due to more time spent commuting and psychological distance from home community.

Social Capital The BIG Factor (according to Putnam):

TV!! . . . . . and other electronic entertainment Contribute 25% of the decline in social

capital. Don’t ask me how he measures that.

Effects: What are the effects of all this decline of

social capital? Lack of communication between segments

of society. Why does this matter? Increasing isolation of members/citizens Lower efficacy, diminished sense of duty. Lower participation and vote turnout.

Then there’s Theda: Theda Skocpol, also of Harvard. Book: Diminished Democracy Makes many of the same points as

Putnam. Lower involvement in civic organizations

leads to lower political involvement. But she sees it from a different

perspective.

Where Theda and Putnum differ: Putnum: traditional civil groups were

mostly local endeavors, not national. Skocpol deals with changes in the

organizational structure of national civic groups: traditional civic organizations were part of

national federations Central office with many local offshoots.

Key difference National groups brought together many

different kinds of people, even if they didn’t see each other that much.

Fostered sense of national unity, not just local friendship.

Kept a lid on inter-group animosity.

Another key difference: Importance of local groups. Putnum gives them less direct political

importance. Skocpol shows local groups very

important politically. Example: Women’s civic orgs in

Progressive Era.

So What Happened? Skocpol says:

Decentralized groups were replaced by centralized groups.

Want to be a member? Write a check. Groups that are dominated by experts:

Environmental, other single-interest groups. Changes in the groups led to changes in

social capital.

More Skocpol: Decline of social capital also correlates

nicely with rise in power of federal government.

Or, it could be a generational effect: “Greatest generation” were also greatest

joiners. Maybe we’re just seeing a slight decline

from a historically aberrant high.

Participation Rule #1 Best-known finding about voting turnout and

participation: “citizens of higher social-economic status

participate more in politics” (Verba and Nie, Participation in America 1972).

This holds true regardless of whether we use education, income, or occupation as the measure of social status.

What we know: College grads participate more than

high-school grads. The rich more than the poor. White-collar workers more than blue-

collar workers.

But . . . . What about those people whose

education and income don’t match? Librarians vs. plumbers

What is the relationship between participation and each of these variables? Do the rich participate more because

they’re rich, or because they have better jobs, or more education, or what?

Education vs. Income Wolfinger and Rosenstone: Who Votes?

Education is a better predictor of voting than is income or job status.

Effect of income is limited, while effect of education is great.

Which brings us back to the old paradox: why has voting fallen while education levels have gone up?

Alternative explanation for the SES effect. Since those in the higher SES

categories are more likely to: join groups, read newspapers, pay attention to politics and news, and discuss politics with others . . .

Alternative explanation for the SES effect.

. . . they’re MUCH easier to mobilize. Rosenstone and Hansen (Mobilization,

Participation, and Democracy in America, 1993)

Find that it’s easier for elites to mobilize higher SES categories.

It’s this difference that matters. Why?