Low information voter: Difference between revisions
#REDIRECT Swing vote |
Sue Gardner (talk | contribs) starting new article, with citations |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Low information voters''', also known as LIVs or "misinformation voters", are people who may vote, but who are generally poorly informed about politics. The phrase is mainly used in the United States, and has become popular since the mid-nineties. |
|||
#REDIRECT [[Swing vote]] |
|||
==Origins== |
|||
American [[pollster]] and [[political scientist]] [[Samuel Popkin]] coined the term "low-information" in 1991 when he used the phrase "low-information signaling" in his book ''[[The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns]]''. Low-information signaling referred to cues or heuristics used by voters, in lieu of substantial information, to determine who to vote for. Examples include voters liking [[Bill Clinton]] for eating at [[McDonald's]], and perceiving [[John Kerry]] as elitist for saying wind-surfing was his favourite sport.<ref>{{cite news|last=Walker|first=Diana|title=The Incredibly Shrinking Democrats|url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1734826,00.html|accessdate=26 August 2012|newspaper=Time magazine|date=24 April 2008}}</ref> |
|||
==Meaning== |
|||
Low-information voters are disproportionately [[White_American|white]] and [[working-class]]. Their views are more [[moderate]] than those of high-information voters, they are less likely to vote, and are looking for a candidate they find personally appealing. They tend to be [[swing vote|swing voters]], and they tend to vote [[split-ticket]] more than well-informed voters do, researchers say because they lack a coherent ideology.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Palfrey|first=Thomas R.|coauthors=Keith T. Poole|title=The Relationship between Information, Ideology, and Voting Behavior|journal=American Journal of Political Science|year=1987|month=August|volume=31|issue=3|pages=511-530|url=http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2111281?uid=3739560&uid=2129&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101169947187|accessdate=26 August 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Lauderdale|first=Benjamin E.|title=Does Inattention to Political Debate Explain the Polarization Gap Between the U.S. Congress and Public?|journal=unpublished|year=2012|month=June|url=http://personal.lse.ac.uk/lauderda/home/downloads/Lauderdale2012RR.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Smalley|first=Suzanne|title=Just How Low Will They Go?|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/05/31/just-how-low-will-they-go.html|accessdate=26 August 2012|newspaper=Newsweek magazine|date=31 May 2008}}</ref> |
|||
[[Linguist]] [[George Lakoff]] has written that the term is a pejorative mainly used by American liberals to refer to people who vote conservative against their own interests, and assumes they do it because they lack sufficient information. Liberals, he said, attribute the problem in part to deliberate [[Republican_Party_(United_States)|Republican]] efforts at misinforming voters.<ref>{{cite news|last=Lakoff|first=George|title=Dumb and dumber: the low-information voter|url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-perspec-0809-info-20120809,0,6776606.story|accessdate=26 August 2012|newspaper=Chicago Tribune|date=9 August 2012}}</ref> |
|||
Thirty-year Republican [[House of Representatives|House]] and [[United_States_Senate|Senate]] staffer [[Mike Lofgren]], in a 2011 piece entitled ''Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult'', characterized low-information voters as anti-intellectual and hostile-to-science "religious cranks," and claimed Republicans are deliberately manipulating LIVs to undermine their confidence in American democratic institutions.<ref>{{cite news|last=Lofgren|first=Mike|title=Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult|url=http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3079:goodbye-to-all-that-reflections-of-a-gop-operative-who-left-the-cult#%5B3%5D|accessdate=26 August 2012|newspaper=Truthout|date=3 September 2011}}</ref> |
|||
A 2012 paper by six American political scientists called "A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics" challenged the idea that Republicans want a low-information electorate, and argued instead that both American parties do. Noting that 95% of incumbents in the highly polarized House of Representatives win re-election despite voters' preference for centrist representation, the paper theorizes that voters' infrequent penalizing of extremist behaviour represents not approval, but a lack of attention and information. This, the paper says, is supported by the fact that when [[congressional districts]] and [[Media_market|media markets]] overlap to create more informed electorates, extremist House members are at much greater risk for defeat. The paper proposes that in the American political system, [[Advocacy_group|interest groups]] and [[activists]] are the key |
|||
actor, and the electorate is uninformed and bamboozled.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Bawn|first=Kathleen|coauthors=Cohen, Martin; Karol, David; Masket, Seth; Noel, Hans; Zaller, John|title=A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics|journal=Perspectives on Politics|date=16 August 2012|year=2012|month=March|volume=10|issue=03|pages=571–597|doi=10.1017/S1537592712001624|url=http://masket.net/Theory_of_Parties.pdf}}</ref> |
|||
==Effects== |
|||
A 1992 study found that in the absence of other information, voters used candidates' physical attractiveness to draw inferences about their personal qualities, political ideology and suitability for office.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Riggle|first=Ellen D.|coauthors=Ottati, Victor C.; Wyer, Robert S.; Kuklinski, James; Schwarz, Norbert|title=Bases of political judgments: The role of stereotypic and nonstereotypic information|journal=Political Behavior|date=1 March 1992|volume=14|issue=1|pages=67–87|doi=10.1007/BF00993509|accessdate=26 August 2012}}</ref> A study performed using [[logistic regression]] [[regression analysis|analysis]] on data from the 1986 through 1994 [[American National Election Studies]] found that low-information voters tend to assume female and black candidates are more liberal than male and white candidates of the same party.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Mcdermott|first=Monika L|title=Race and Gender Cues in Low-Information Elections|journal=Political Research Quarterly|date=1 December 1998|volume=51|issue=4|pages=895–918|doi=10.1177/106591299805100403|accessdate=26 August 2012}}</ref> |
|||
An analysis concerned with the "puzzling finding" that incumbent legislators in mature democracies charged with corruption are not commonly punished in elections compared support for candidates accused of corruption with voters' level of political awareness, and found that less-informed voters were significantly more likely to vote for incumbents accused of corruption than were their better-informed counterparts, presumably because they did not know about the allegations.<ref>{{cite web|last=Klasnja|first=Marko|title=Why Do Malfeasant Politicians Maintain Political Support? Testing the "Uninformed Voter" Argument|url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1901683|publisher=Social Science Research Network|accessdate=26 August 2012}}</ref> |
|||
==References== |
|||
{{Reflist}} |
|||
Revision as of 08:09, 26 August 2012
Low information voters, also known as LIVs or "misinformation voters", are people who may vote, but who are generally poorly informed about politics. The phrase is mainly used in the United States, and has become popular since the mid-nineties.
Origins
American pollster and political scientist Samuel Popkin coined the term "low-information" in 1991 when he used the phrase "low-information signaling" in his book The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Low-information signaling referred to cues or heuristics used by voters, in lieu of substantial information, to determine who to vote for. Examples include voters liking Bill Clinton for eating at McDonald's, and perceiving John Kerry as elitist for saying wind-surfing was his favourite sport.[1]
Meaning
Low-information voters are disproportionately white and working-class. Their views are more moderate than those of high-information voters, they are less likely to vote, and are looking for a candidate they find personally appealing. They tend to be swing voters, and they tend to vote split-ticket more than well-informed voters do, researchers say because they lack a coherent ideology.[2][3][4]
Linguist George Lakoff has written that the term is a pejorative mainly used by American liberals to refer to people who vote conservative against their own interests, and assumes they do it because they lack sufficient information. Liberals, he said, attribute the problem in part to deliberate Republican efforts at misinforming voters.[5]
Thirty-year Republican House and Senate staffer Mike Lofgren, in a 2011 piece entitled Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult, characterized low-information voters as anti-intellectual and hostile-to-science "religious cranks," and claimed Republicans are deliberately manipulating LIVs to undermine their confidence in American democratic institutions.[6]
A 2012 paper by six American political scientists called "A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics" challenged the idea that Republicans want a low-information electorate, and argued instead that both American parties do. Noting that 95% of incumbents in the highly polarized House of Representatives win re-election despite voters' preference for centrist representation, the paper theorizes that voters' infrequent penalizing of extremist behaviour represents not approval, but a lack of attention and information. This, the paper says, is supported by the fact that when congressional districts and media markets overlap to create more informed electorates, extremist House members are at much greater risk for defeat. The paper proposes that in the American political system, interest groups and activists are the key actor, and the electorate is uninformed and bamboozled.[7]
Effects
A 1992 study found that in the absence of other information, voters used candidates' physical attractiveness to draw inferences about their personal qualities, political ideology and suitability for office.[8] A study performed using logistic regression analysis on data from the 1986 through 1994 American National Election Studies found that low-information voters tend to assume female and black candidates are more liberal than male and white candidates of the same party.[9] An analysis concerned with the "puzzling finding" that incumbent legislators in mature democracies charged with corruption are not commonly punished in elections compared support for candidates accused of corruption with voters' level of political awareness, and found that less-informed voters were significantly more likely to vote for incumbents accused of corruption than were their better-informed counterparts, presumably because they did not know about the allegations.[10]
References
- ^ Walker, Diana (24 April 2008). "The Incredibly Shrinking Democrats". Time magazine. Retrieved 26 August 2012.
- ^ Palfrey, Thomas R. (1987). "The Relationship between Information, Ideology, and Voting Behavior". American Journal of Political Science. 31 (3): 511–530. Retrieved 26 August 2012.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - ^ Lauderdale, Benjamin E. (2012). "Does Inattention to Political Debate Explain the Polarization Gap Between the U.S. Congress and Public?" (PDF). unpublished.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - ^ Smalley, Suzanne (31 May 2008). "Just How Low Will They Go?". Newsweek magazine. Retrieved 26 August 2012.
- ^ Lakoff, George (9 August 2012). "Dumb and dumber: the low-information voter". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 26 August 2012.
- ^ Lofgren, Mike (3 September 2011). "Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult". Truthout. Retrieved 26 August 2012.
- ^ Bawn, Kathleen (16 August 2012). "A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics" (PDF). Perspectives on Politics. 10 (03): 571–597. doi:10.1017/S1537592712001624.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ Riggle, Ellen D. (1 March 1992). "Bases of political judgments: The role of stereotypic and nonstereotypic information". Political Behavior. 14 (1): 67–87. doi:10.1007/BF00993509.
{{cite journal}}:|access-date=requires|url=(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Mcdermott, Monika L (1 December 1998). "Race and Gender Cues in Low-Information Elections". Political Research Quarterly. 51 (4): 895–918. doi:10.1177/106591299805100403.
{{cite journal}}:|access-date=requires|url=(help) - ^ Klasnja, Marko. "Why Do Malfeasant Politicians Maintain Political Support? Testing the "Uninformed Voter" Argument". Social Science Research Network. Retrieved 26 August 2012.