In this article, we consider the relationship between voter turnout and voter evaluations of the candidates. Using thermometer data and the 1976 voter validation study, we investigate the magnitude of indifference, alienation, and satisfaction effects. Overall, we find candidate-based abstention in 1976 to be minimal, suggesting that nonvoting in American presidential elections must be understood in terms of factors unrelated to parties' choices of nominees.
The story of a presidential election year is in many ways the story of the actions and interactions of those considered as possible candidates for their nation's highest office. If this is true in the abstract, it certainly was true in the election of 1968. The political headlines of 1968 were captured by those who ran for the nominations of their parties, those who pondered over whether or not to run, those who chose to pull out of the race or were struck down during the campaign, those who raised a third party banner, and those who resisted suggestions to run outside the two-party structure. While 1968 may have been unusual in the extent to which many prospective candidates dominated the political scene, every presidential election is, in its own way, highlighted by those considered for the office of President.The political scientist has shown scholarly interest in the candidates. His interest, however, has been selective in its focus—mainly concentrating on the two actual party nominees and not the larger set of possible presidential candidates. Research in electoral behavior has detailed the popular image of the nominees in terms of the public's reactions to their record and experience, personal qualities, and party affiliation. Furthermore, attitudes toward the nominees have been shown to constitute a major short-term influence on the vote. Yet attitudes toward other candidates have been surveyed only to ascertain the behavior of those people who favored someone other than the ultimate nominees.
A widely accepted generalization in the social science literature is that women tend to personalize politics & politicians. The meaning of this assertion, however, is not always clear, & varies from study to study. Available United States survey data from 1952 to 1976 are reviewed to determine whether & how women differ from men in their assessments of politicians. No evidence for a consistent sex difference in orientation to candidates versus issues is found. A wider range of categories is needed in analyzing grounds for voting for a candidate, & further research is needed to determine what differences there are between men & women in these categories. 2 Tables, Appendix. Modified HA.
The effects of alienation & indifference on voter turnout are examined in the presidential election of Nov 1968. Data were compiled from 2 nationwide surveys: (1) the ORC/IEP survey, commissioned from the Opinion Research Corp, Princeton, NJ, & the SRC survey of the Survey Research Center, U of Michigan, for the Inter-U Consortium for Political Research. 2 propositions found support in the analysis: (1) a central premise of rational decision theory, that people act so as to maximize their expected utility, & (2) basic tenets of the "funnel of causality," that those who expect the same utility from the candidates resolve their voting dilemma by recourse to prior attitudes & expectancies. Thus, the research emphasis is shifted from the explanation of the vote to the explanation of attitudes toward candidates. In 1968, many citizens who stayed away from the polls abstained in response to their feelings about the candidates. Indifference & alienation are more important causes of nonvoting that much of the literature would predict. At the same time, some rational theories of turnout, & many formal models of the electoral process, may overstate their magnitude. Abstention seriously affects social choice. To the extent that abstentions are anticipated by decision-makers, & preventative action is taken, the views of potential abstainers may play a special role in policy formation. 10 Tables, 2 Figures. Modified Authors' Summary.
CONSIDERATION OF 'CANDIDATE PREFERENCE FUNCTION' ELEMENT OF ELECTORAL ALGORITHMS HAS BEEN LARGELY IGNORED AND IS HERE EXAMINED. UTILIZING PSYCHOPHYSICAL SCALING AND VALIDATION PROCEDURES THIS PAPER ESTABLISHES THAT INTERPERSONALLY COMPARABLE MEASURES OF CANDIDATE EVALUATION (UTILITY) MAY BE DEVELOPED, & THAT THE CPF SPECIFIES A POWER RELATION BETWEEN CANDIDATE PREFERENCES AND CANDIDATE EVALUATION.
THE AUTHORS DEVELOP TWO COMPLEMENTARY MODELS OF THE DETERMINANTS OF CANDIDATE RECOGNITION AND EVALUATION. IN THE RECOGNITION MODEL, CONTACT WITH VOTERS AND MEDIA EFFECTS ARE OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE; EVALUATION, IT IS ARGUED, IS A FUNCTION OF PERSONAL CONTACT AND PARTY IDENTIFICATION. INCUMBENCY AS A VARIABLE ADDS LITTLE THAT IS NOT ALREADY CONTAINED IN INCUMBENT RECOGNITION/EVALUATION ADVANTAGES.
This research attempts to distinguish image voting, the influence of the voter's assessment of the candidates' personal qualities on the vote, from image rationalization, the influence of the vote on the voter's assessment of the candidate's personal qualities. From an analysis of the opinions of a panel of voters examined during the 1976 presidential primaries it appears that although candidates' images have a substantial influence on the vote, the vote has nearly as much impact on candidate image. Also, image voting is more prevalent among less politically interested voters but is not significantly affected by the extent of ideological differences between the candidates.
In this article, the content of citizens' evaluations of the candidates in the 1980 presidential campaign is explored. Using the "likes/dislikes" questions from the 1980 CPS American National Election Study, responses are placed into two broad categories: policy and personal evaluations. The content of these evaluations is then linked to the strategies followed by Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. Five logically necessary conditions for concluding that the campaign strategies had an effect on citizen evaluations of the candidates are stipulated. The data analysis supports all five conditions, and leads to the conclusion that the strategies of the candidates may very well have influenced the outcome of the 1980 presidential election.
