Search results

America's increasing racial and ethnic diversity is viewed by some as an opportunity to challenge and so reinforce the country's social fabric; by others, as a portent of alarming disunity. While everyone agrees that this diversity is markedly influencing political dynamics not only nationally but often on the state and local levels, we know little about how racial and ethnic groups organize and participate in politics or how political elites try to mobilize them. This book tells us. By integrating class-based factors with racial and ethnic factors, Jan Leighley shows what motivates African-Americans, Latinos, and Anglos to mobilize and participate in politics. Drawing on national survey data and on interviews with party and elected officials in Texas, she develops a nuanced understanding of how class, race, and ethnicity act as individual and contextual influences on elite mobilization and mass participation. Leighley examines whether the diverse theoretical approaches generally used to explain individual participation in politics are supported for the groups under consideration. She concludes that the political and social context influences racial and ethnic minorities' decisions to participate, but that different features of those environments are important for different groups. Race and ethnicity structure participation more than previous research suggests. Casting new light on an issue at the crux of contemporary American politics, Strength in Numbers? will be welcomed by scholars and students of political science, African-American and Latino studies, urban politics, and social movements

Though individual-level attributes typically dominate models of political participation, many studies have shown that the social context also influences individuals' likelihood of participation. This article considers two questions concerning the impact of the social context on participation. First, it examines whether specific features of individuals' discussion networks (size, politicization, and homogeneity) influence their likelihood of participation. Second, it considers whether social interaction influences only participation that is socially based, as suggested by studies of the effects of aggregate contextual characteristics on participation. The analysis uses data from the 1976 American National Election Study, which is merged with 1970 census data. Social interaction affects participation in both individually based and socially based participation, although not always in the expected direction. Aggregate contextual measures are then used to replicate previous studies that established the distinction between individually based and socially based participation. That similar results are not obtained suggests that this distinction is not valid and that the social context is likely to influence all types of participation.

Who Votes Now? compares the demographic characteristics and political views of voters and nonvoters in American presidential elections since 1972 and examines how electoral reforms and the choices offered by candidates influence voter turnout. Drawing on a wealth of data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and the American National Election Studies, Jan Leighley and Jonathan Nagler demonstrate that the rich have consistently voted more than the poor for the past four decades, and that voters are substantially more conservative in their economic views than nonvoters. They

"Who Votes Now? compares the demographic characteristics and political views of voters and nonvoters in American presidential elections since 1972 and examines how electoral reforms and the choices offered by candidates influence voter turnout. Drawing on a wealth of data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and the American National Election Studies, Jan Leighley and Jonathan Nagler demonstrate that the rich have consistently voted more often than the poor for the past four decades, and that voters are substantially more conservative in their economic views than nonvoters. They find that women are now more likely to vote than men, that the gap in voting rates between blacks and whites has largely disappeared, and that older Americans continue to vote more than younger Americans. Leighley and Nagler also show how electoral reforms such as Election Day voter registration and absentee voting have boosted voter turnout, and how turnout would also rise if parties offered more distinct choices."--Publisher's description.

Does political participation make a difference for policy responsiveness, or is affluence what matters most? To examine whether participation beyond voting matters for policy representation, we analyze congruence between citizens' policy preferences and their representatives' roll call votes using data from the 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. For the main policy issue for which citizens' political engagement beyond voting enhances congruence—namely, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010—we then investigate whether this effect holds when taking citizens' income into account. The findings show that for the ACA, constituents' participation beyond voting is associated with increased congruence with their representatives at all levels of income, and that those with less income who are politically active beyond voting experience the largest increase in congruence. However, our findings also show that the potential of political participation and income to enhance congruence is restricted to co-partisans, and to highly partisan and salient issues.

Previous research demonstrates the importance of citizens' communication networks as an influence on their political behavior. Yet most findings are limited to samples of Whites or the interaction of Whites with their discussants. This article extends our attention to the social networks of Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and noncitizens, and explores how communication processes differ across them. Using data from the Multi-City Study of Urban Inequality, we first compare various characteristics of social networks across racial and ethnic groups. Second, we test whether the network-based advantages of Whites, compared with other groups, result from differences in individual socioeconomic status or from group-based social resources. Third, we investigate whether interracial interaction affects race-related attitudes. In conclusion, we urge scholars who study social networks to recognize the important consequences of racial diversity for more fully understanding the political behavior of all Americans, whether Anglo, Black, Latino, or Asian.