Voter Apathy 1

Running head: Voter Apathy in the US: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach

Voter Apathy in the US: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach

Randy J. Saltzmann

American Military University

Abstract

There has been much research concerning the reason for the relatively small number of the

American public who participate in voting. This paper offers a review on this research and

utilizing various disciplines, probes the possibility that the previous research may have been

looking in the wrong location for the root of the problem. This paper proposes that the political

parties themselves precisely, the way the parties have positioned themselves over the past few

decades - drawing on the aforementioned research - is directly responsible for this trend. This

paper offers some proof of this alternate hypothesis on the cause of Voter Apathy, and a possible

solution.

.
 Voter Apathy 3

Voter Apathy in the US: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach

The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the

apathy of a citizen in a democracy. Charles de Montesquieu

Nothing can so alienate a voter from the political system as backing a winning

candidate.

Mark B. Cohen

Definition and Background

“Voter Apathy” is said to be the cause of the disturbingly low voter turnout in the United

States. Numerous studies have attempted to define, identify the causes of and provide solutions

to the problem of voter apathy. These studies have ranged in scope from the effect of “negative

advertising”[ CITATION Cli04 \l 1033 ] [ CITATION Ste92 \l 1033 ] to “alienation”

[ CITATION Dea60 \l 1033 ],[ CITATION Wil74 \l 1033 ] and [ CITATION Pri85 \l 1033 ].

The majority of these studies have focused ultimately, on actions the voter or the candidate

themselves are responsible for. This paper attempts to take a multi-disciplinary look, not only at

the problem of “voter apathy” itself, but also at the research itself, which this author believes

only touches on the periphery of the problem. This author believes that the individual is not to

blame for the apathy in politics, but politics itself – namely, the political parties. Voters are

apathetic to the political process precisely because they do not see a difference between the two

primary political parties anymore.

According to Bibby and Schaffner, Voter turnout between 1960 and 2004 has seen a

steady decline, from 63% of the voting age population in 1960 to a low of 49% in 1996, with a

slight increase to 56 % by 2004[ CITATION Bib081 \p 214 \l 1033 ]. One of the primary

reasons that the percentage of eligible voters who vote is so low is said to be “Voter Apathy”.
 Voter Apathy 4

Gerald Garvey defines “Voter Apathy” as a “theory of passive consent… [where] citizens are

satisfied that their interests will not be seriously harmed, regardless of which party wins.”

[ CITATION Gar66 \p 29 \l 1033 ], This author would alter that definition slightly from “…their

interests will not be seriously harmed…” to “…their interests will probably be harmed

anyway…”

Hypothesis

People are continually making choices - from what to wear, to what career to pursue.

Many of these choices are made with a minimum of conscious thought, yet others require

considered deliberation. People tend to be “brand loyal”, yet in a article for the Journal of

Economics and Management Strategy, Matthew Shum seems to show that when consumers even

merely perceive a difference between two similar objects, they are more likely to differentiate

between the two [ CITATION Mat04 \l 1033 ]. Yet, when two similar choices are perceived to

be of equal (or no) value, a common reaction is to chose neither, or to postpone the choosing

until circumstances change the equation [ CITATION Sha93 \l 1033 ]. This paper begins with

the assumption that it is this lack of differentiation between the two main political parties is the

primary cause of “Voter Apathy”. From the inception of the Democratic and Republican parties,

the two parties had diametrically opposed views. In the Political Conventions of 1952, the

policies of the two major parties were clearly stated, and were held as the policies of every

member of the party. For the Democrats, the platform was:”Achieving Prosperity, Strengthening

Democracy, Building Peace with Honor, etc.” [ CITATION Dem52 \l 1033 ] The Republican’s

platform was “Foreign Policy, National Defence, Small Business, Taxation, Agriculture, Labor

(and Unions), Civil Rights, etc.” [ CITATION Rep52 \l 1033 ]. This differentiation proved to
 Voter Apathy 5

be a valuable tool to voters who might otherwise be unaware of the particular stands any one

candidate might take on any given issue – “Democrat” or “Republican” was enough to allow a

choice. As early as the 1950s though, the differences in the party ideologies began to become

muddled. Delli Carpini states: “Public opinion studies of the 1940’s through 1960’s provided the

first systematic evidence of the civic state of the masses…the average American citizen was…

apathetic, uninterested in politics…[and] only marginally interested in voting…In addition…

only 10 percent of the public could define the meaning of ‘liberal’ or

‘conservative’…”[ CITATION Del96 \p 41 \l 1033 ]. He goes on to discuss ‘heuristics” or the

logic shortcuts voters use to simplify their voting. Of this, Delli Carpini states that with the two-

party system in America, voters often choose based on the party affiliation of the candidates, “…

there is little need for a detailed understanding of one’s self-interest or of the public good. One

need only to know enough to determine which of the two parties comes closest to those

interests”[ CITATION Del96 \p 53 \l 1033 ]. Furthermore, Delli Carpini references a statement

by Downs that: “The competition between two parties also increases the likelihood that the

stands of the parties will converge”[ CITATION Del96 \p 54 \l 1033 ] By 1980, this

convergence in stands was very evident; both parties vowed to reduce taxes; “Tax Reductions—

We commit ourselves to targeted tax reductions designed to stimulate production and combat

recession…” [ CITATION Dem80 \l 1033 ] “…the Republican Party supports across-the-board

reductions in personal income tax rates…” [ CITATION Rep80 \l 1033 ] and reform welfare,

strengthen support for veterans, etc. The way each party wanted to go about doing these things

was slightly different, but for the most part, both platforms were the same. Add to this, that the

party members in the Congress and elsewhere fought among themselves over how to carry out

these planks. Voters raised to believe there was a difference between the two major parties (as
 Voter Apathy 6

there were in the past) do not see those differences today. When it really does not matter who

wins, “because nothing is going to change anyway”, what is the point in voting?

The ideologies of the parties have been sacrificed in the name of moderation. In an

attempt to succor the favor of the 40% of non-voters, the parties have alienated a sizeable portion

of the party faithful - and failed in their attempt to gain the absent voters. This paper’s

hypothesis is predicated upon, and seems to be substantiated by the 1992 election cycle,

which had an anomalous 55% voter turnout rate – 5 percentage points higher than the

preceding election cycle, and 6 percentage points higher than the following election cycle

[ CITATION Bib081 \p 214 \l 1033 ]. What was the primary difference between 1992 and

‘88/’96? 1992 saw something happen that has not happened since the late 1800’s - a viable

third candidate, in the form of H. Ross Perot. Mr. Perot’s independent candidacy forced

both the Democrats and the Republicans to define themselves. Although Mr. Perot never

formally published a platform, Steven Holmes of The New York Times was able to piece

together a sample platform from interviews Mr. Perot gave. These positions were

Economic Development; Government should study and strengthen industry, loosen bank

regulations, and weaken Federal anti-trust laws. Taxes; opposed to raising taxes, opposed

to middle-class tax cut, favors reduction in capital gains tax. Budget Deficit; primarily

saving monies through reducing waste, asking Europe to pay for more of its own defense

and eliminating Social Security payments to upper-income beneficiaries [ CITATION Ste921

\l 1033 ]. To combat Mr. Perot’s run at the Whitehouse, the two Major Parties went back to

their roots: “The Revolution of 1992 is about a radical change in the way government

operates—not the Republican proposition that government has no role, nor the old notion

that there's a program for every problem, but a shift to a more efficient, flexible and
 Voter Apathy 7

results-oriented government that improves services, expands choices, and empowers

citizens and communities to change our country from the bottom up”[ CITATION Woo92 \l

1033 ] and “Unlike our opponents… [We believe] bigger is not better, that quantity and

quality are different things, that more money does not guarantee better outcomes…the

importance of individual choice—in education, health care, child care—and that

bureaucracy is the enemy of initiative and self-reliance. We believe in empowerment… We

believe in decentralized authority, and a bottom-line, principled commitment to what

works for people”[ CITATION Woo921 \l 1033 ]. This basic shift, from attempting to

moderate the parties’ positions toward the imaginary “center” to rigidly defining the

ideology that the parties were formed on, was key to drawing in people who otherwise

would have stayed home.

Literature Review

There are many theories of the causes of low voter turnout, most have to do with the concept of

“Alienation”. Patricia Southwell states, “since 1960, the percentage of eligible Americans who

chose to vote has declined from the previous election. This decrease in voter turnout has caused

the focus of research on participation to shift from the choice between candidates and parties to

the choice of whether or not to vote…Americans have become less attached to the two major

political parties, less trusting of elected officials and political institutions, and less confident of

their own ability to influence the political system”[ CITATION Pri85 \p 663 \l 1033 ]. She

also states, “Nonvoters need more than access ramps to polling booths or mail-in registration

cards to get them to vote; they need a reason to believe in the political system again”

[ CITATION Pri85 \p 671 \l 1033 ]. Although her results seem to indicate that “alienation”

coupled with cynicism is a major indicator of low voter turnout, her statements seem to indicate
 Voter Apathy 8

more of disenchantment with the political parties and process than a true alienation. Perhaps if

her study had been more focused on investigating the root cause of the sensation of alienation

and cynicism, she may have discovered that people were unhappy with the similarity of

selections offered at the voting booth and were ‘alienated” and “cynical” with politics by not

having a candidate they could readily identify with, both claiming to be ideologically different,

yet espousing similar views.

In Martin, Bengtson and Acock‘s work, they hypothesize that political alienation is age

variable, and that as young people are less invested in politics, they will also be the most

alienated, with older people next, as they are leaving the political sphere. Their findings

supported this theory, and led to the conclusion that “The contrasts observed between

generations may be due to sets of different life experiences…”[ CITATION Wil74 \p 272 \l 1033

]. Could this, perhaps, have something to do with the older participants having realized the

political value of status quo, and not feeling the need to participate as actively - as the topics

most dear to them are politically untouchable, and the younger voters not being as invested in

society - therefore not feeling the need to protect what they do not possess? Alternatively, could

it be that older voters were used to ideologically distinct choices – and are dismayed at the lack

of those choices today, and the younger voters were unsure of the ideological stands of the

candidates? Either is a distinct possibility, yet not one that was accounted for in this research.

In “Alienation and Political Apathy”, Dwight G. Dean hypothesizes that there are positive

correlations between alienation and political apathy. In his study, he found that although his

alienation and political apathy scales “reached a statistical significance in many instances, the

level of correlation was so low as to render them practically irrelevant”[ CITATION Dea60 \l

1033 ]. Dean apparently did not take into account suggestions he attributes to Paul Lazarsfeld
 Voter Apathy 9

“… [people] often do not decide for or against…but rather change the subject or avoid it

altogether” [ CITATION Dea60 \p 187 \l 1033 ] and Samuel Lubell that imply “nonvoting is

not always due to apathy, but that it may be a result of the voter’s inability to

decide”[ CITATION Dea60 \p 187 \l 1033 ]. In the case of Lubbell’s statement, the Merriam

Webster’s dictionary defines apathy as “lack of interest of concern - indifferent” and indifference

as “[a] lack of difference or distinction between two or more things”[ CITATION Mer10 \l

1033 ]. In this way, one could very well define apathy as an inability to decide based on the

similarity of choices. Again, if Dean had investigated the sources of the alienation, perhaps he

would have found a correlation with the lack of obvious choices.

In the above research, the researchers were attempting to identify if alienation or apathy

were the cause of low voter turnout, however, they all failed to ask (although some of the

researchers –Dean, for example- brushed against it) “what is the root cause of the alienation?”

This researcher believes it is due to the lack of obvious choice in the ideology of the parties.

In the book “What Americans Know about Politics And Why It Matters”, Delli Carpini

and Keeter state, “In order to cast a vote that expresses their political views, voters must be

aware of both what the candidates (or the parties) stand for and what they themselves

want.”[ CITATION Del96 \p 254-255 \l 1033 ]. They go on to say, while discussing where

voters get their information to vote that “Unfortunately, intermediary organizations, such

as political parties [emphasis added]…have lost much of the deliberative, participatory

character…Nonetheless, such organizations remain essential …[to] provide fertile ground

for improving the information environment…”[ CITATION Del96 \p 282 \l 1033 ]. Delli

Carpini and Keeter’s book is primarily interested in determining if the general political

knowledge level of the American public is adequate for the successful continuation of
 Voter Apathy 10

American democracy. Their ultimate determination is that it is sufficient, however, they–

perhaps accidentally hit upon a broader and more fundamental question – Is American

democracy adequately informing the American public? In this, this author would submit

that American democracy is intentionally distorting public knowledge.

In studies of choice selection, it has been found that as the similarity of choices increases,

the difficulty of choosing between the alternatives rises [ CITATION Sto97 \p 161 \l 1033 ].

Or, as Shafir, Simonson and Tversky put it, “Providing a context that presents compelling

reasons for choosing an option apparently increases people's tendency to opt for that option,

whereas comparing alternatives that render the aforementioned reasons less compelling tends to

increase people's tendency to maintain the status quo or search for other alternatives.” which

may include the “no choice” choice[ CITATION Sha93 \p 33 \l 1033 ]. In other words, it is

much easier to choose between black and white than between varying shades of grey.

Anecdotal Evidence

News services throughout the nation report on the “Growing problem of Voter

Apathy”, even if this is to be taken as partly sensational to either drive revenue or

encourage voting through ridicule, the fact remains that there is no end to the quotes and

sound bites that come from these reports. “[I]t’s such a Disney view of it to say that we’re

voting to make a difference.”[ CITATION Nic04 \l 1033 ], "Can't be bothered to

vote,"[ CITATION Jim00 \l 1033 ], “I have one uncle who's a Republican and his wife is a

Democrat. They don't vote because to them, their votes would cancel each other out”

[ CITATION Can07 \l 1033 ], “— Too busy; — Registration is too complicated; — Many

have to vote absentee; — Candidates do not address issues of interest; — Political

bickering is a turn-off; — Political campaigns are negative; — Election Day is not a holiday;
 Voter Apathy 11

or, — You don't get free stuff” [ CITATION Int06 \l 1033 ] and the list goes on and on.

Could these answers, some flippant, some relatively considered, be masking the fact that

the people asked do not want to admit that they cannot decide? As Shafir, Simonson and

Tversky indicate in their work, the act of deciding takes considerable effort, whether we realize it

or not, and the internal conflict decision-making causes may be difficult to reconcile. Often,

instead of facing this conflict, the individual making the decision will choose “option C – None

of the above” and move on to easier decisions [ CITATION Sha93 \l 1033 ].

Proposed Solution

Unfortunately, the research into why Americans fail to vote in greater numbers may,

ultimately be contributing to low voter turnout. By not addressing the root causes of

“alienation” etc. the research has perhaps, caused the political parties to move ever closer

together ideologically in the attempt to alleviate this “alienation”. In the attempt to put

these findings into use, and become ever more inclusive, the parties may be inadvertently

exacerbating the problem by making it harder and harder for the voter to decide whom to

vote for. This author would suggest that direct research be conducted to determine the

validity of this hypothesis, as the constraints of time and resources allotted to this paper do

not allow for the necessary diligence. A simple approach toward a solution would be for

the parties to define themselves clearly - to move away from the realm of grey, and back to

their previous polar opposite positions. In this way, by clearly defining themselves

distinctly from their opposition, the choice for voters will be made easier, and therefore,

the act of choosing – voting – will be made easier. If the parties are unable – or unwilling –

to change their issue positions, then they must make the decision to define the issues and

positions they do stand for and succinctly show how their positions differ from their
 Voter Apathy 12

opponents. Failure to do this, to remain in the shadows of ‘grey’ ideology will ensure the

current levels of voter apathy, and eventually increase the number of individuals who

choose not to choose. The chance that the parties will do this is slim though, as both parties

are continually positioning themselves as “moderate” parties, not ideologues. The problem

with this is, people who define themselves as “moderate” still have strong views on many

topics, and look for a party that shares those views. According to an opinion piece posted

on CBS News’s website, moderates “look much more like liberals than

conservatives.”[ CITATION Boo05 \l 1033 ] Therefore, instead of trying to be all things to

all people, the parties should return to their roots, and be proud of who they are, and what

they stand for. Only in this way, will people notice a difference, start caring again, who gets

into office, and therefore vote.

References

Banker, S. (1992). The Ethics of Political Marketing Practices, the Rhetorical Perspective.

Journal of Business Ethics , 843.

Bibby, J. F., & Schaffner, B. F. (2008). Politics, Parties, & Elections in America. (Sixth, Ed.)

Boston: Thomas Higher Education.

Clinton, J. D., & Lapinski, J. S. (2004). “Targeted” Advertising and Voter Turnout: An

Experimental Study of the 2000 Presidential Election. THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS ,

69–96.

Dean, D. G. (1960). Alienation and Political Apathy. Social Forces , 38 (3), 185-189.

Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans Know About Politics and Why It

Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Garvey, G. (1966). The Theory of Party Equilibrium. The American Political Science Review ,

60 (1), 29-38.

Haynes, C. (2006, Aug 27). Interest Groups Combat Voter Apathy Among College Students.

Retrieved Mar 20, 2010, from Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209074,00.html

Holmes, S. A. (1992, June 14). THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Undeclared Candidate; Behind Two

Issues, Outlines of Perot Presidency Emerge. Retrieved Mar 24, 2010, from The New

York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/14/us/1992-campaign-undeclared-

candidate-behind-two-issues-outlines-perot-presidency.html?pagewanted=1

Hoy, N. (2004, Nov 20). Voter Apathy: The Missing Half of America . Retrieved Mar 22, 2010,

from The Stanford Review:

http://stanfordreview.org/old_archives/Archive/Volume_XXXIII/Issue_3/News/news1.sh

tml

Lehrer, J. (2000). Is The System Broken? Retrieved Mar 20, 2010, from News Hour Extra:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec00/brokensystem.html

Martin, W. C., Bengston, V. L., & Acock, A. C. (1974). Alienation and Age: A Context-Specific

Approach. Social Forces , 266-274.

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved Mar 25, 2010, from Merriam-Webster

Online: http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Cognition , 11-36.

Shum, M. (2004). Does Advertising Overcome Brand Loyalty? Evidence From The Breakfast-

Cereals Market. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy , 241-272.

Southwell, P. L. (1985). Alienation and Nonvoting in the United States: A Refined

Operationalization. The Western Political Quarterly , 663-674.

Stone, D. N., & Kadous, K. (1997). The Joint Effects of Task-Related Negative Affect and Task

Difficulty in Multiattribute Choice.

ORGANIZATIONALBEHAVIORANDHUMANDECISIONPROCESSES , 159-174.

Tran, C. (2007, Oct 12). How Voter Apathy Affects Democracy In The US . Retrieved Mar 20,

2010, from Ground Report: http://www.groundreport.com/Politics/How-Voter-Apathy-

Affects-Democracy-In-The-US/2836355

Waldman, P. (2005, Oct 18). Moderate Voters Aren't So Moderate. Retrieved Feb 10, 2010, from

The American Prospect: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=10438

Wooley, J., & Peters, G. (1952, July 21). Democratic Party Platform of 1952. Retrieved Feb 10,

2010, from The American Presidency Project:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29600

Wooley, J., & Peters, G. (1980, Aug 11). Democratic Party Platform of 1980. Retrieved Feb 11,

2010, from The American Presidency Project:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29607

Wooley, J., & Peters, G. (1992, July 13). Democratic Party Platform of 1992. Retrieved Mar 20,

2010, from The American Presidency Project:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29610

Wooley, J., & Peters, G. (1952, July 7). Republican Party Platform of 1952. Retrieved Feb 10,

2010, from The American Presidency Project:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25837

Wooley, J., & Peters, G. (1980, Jul 15). Republican Party Platform of 1980. Retrieved Feb 11,

2010, from The American Presidency Project:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25844

Wooley, J., & Peters, G. (1992, Aug 17). Republican Party Platform of 1992. Retrieved Mar 20,

2010, from The American Presidency Project:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25847