Political Participation

1. Political Participation How, Who and Why

2. 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

3. How we participate • Methods of participation: • Voting • Contributing time: volunteering • Contributing money: donations • Running for office

4. 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.

5. 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?

6. Volunteering: Time • Who volunteers? • The elderly and the better-off tend to volunteer and spend more time in community organizations. • Why?

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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?

22. 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?

23. 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 . . .

24. 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?