“local political parties and young voters.” daniel shea, 2009
Post on 20-Dec-2015
215 views
TRANSCRIPT
“Local Political Parties and Young Voters.”
Daniel Shea, 2009.
Introduction
Local Parties and Electoral Mobilization (166)Historically, parties were key to high turnouts.
US Youth Voting (VT) in Comparative terms History of Voter Turnout in the US (167)
Methodological Questions:Defining VotersDefining Youth: 18-24 or 18-29?
Turnout Levels
Methodological Questions:Defining Voters: VAP v. VEP
VAP: Voting Age Population“Voting-age population…consists of everyone age 18 and older residing in the United States…”
VEP: Voting Eligible PopulationDefined by those who are eligible to vote (“excludes: non-citizens and ineligible felons, and [includes] overseas eligible voters…”)*
Defining Youth: 18-24 or 18-29?
* Source: M. McDonald, http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm.
Turnout Levels
Source: M. McDonald, http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm.
Turnout Levels
Defining Youth: (18-24 or 18-29?) Presidential Elections, 1927-2008
Turnout Levels
Defining Youth: (18-24 or 18-29?) Presidential Elections, 1927-2006
Source: CIRCLE (The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (Tufts University)
Turnout Levels
Youth Turnout (18-29): Massachusetts, Presidential Elections, 1974-2004.
Turnout Levels
Youth Turnout (18-29): Mid-term Elections, 1974-2006.
Source: CIRCLE (The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (Tufts University)
Turnout Levels
Youth Turnout: (18-24 and 18-29) Gender, Presidential, 1972-2004
Source: CIRCLE (The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (Tufts University)
Turnout Levels
Youth Turnout (18-29): Area, Mid-term Election, 2006.
Source: CIRCLE (The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (Tufts University)
Introduction
What drove voter participation in the past?
Parties: specifically local parties) were key in the 19th and early 20th Centuries.
Several recent studies found that local parties often play a critical role in reg. new voters and in GOTV (Frendeis et al. 1990; Shea and Green 2007)
But local parties declined during over the course of the 20th C.
Introduction
Party Variation and Youth Engagement Efforts
Methodology: Green and Shea (2007) [Chapters 2 and 3] conducted a 2003 survey of 805 local party leaders.
Most see Youth Engagement (YE) as important, but only about half do it.
Focus of Study:
Perceptual and Contextual forces Shaping Youth EngagementStudies focuses on “perceptual and contextual forces that shape” a party’s willingness to … undertake youth-centered projects and the likely success of these efforts.” We might assume certain types of parties in certain contexts will be more successful at YE than other orgs. (169)
Outline of Chapter:
Outline of Chapter: Focus on three key variables
1) Party Goals2) Party Resources3) Electoral Competition
Party Goals
Party GoalsWhat are local parties designed to accomplish? What distinguishes a “successful”
from a “failed” party?
Two Differing Perspectives on Party Goals:Rational-Efficient/PragmaticResponsible/Ideological
Rational-Efficient/Pragmatic: Elite, no mass-base, focused on the “professional” goal of becoming more
technically advanced. Even more so than winning elections, the objective is to aid candidates (invokes the “service” party concept).
Responsible/Ideological:Goal is public policy change, elections should be won in order to elect officials
who espouse the party’s policies.
Party Goals
Rational-Efficient/Pragmatic: Elite, no mass-base, focused on the “professional” goal of becoming more
technically advanced. Even more so than winning elections, the objective is to aid candidates (invokes the “service” party concept).
Responsible/Ideological:Goal is public policy change, elections should be won in order to elect officials
who espouse the party’s policies.
Party Goals
Hypothesis 1: (Party Type)Responsible Party (IV) more willing to mobilize youth than rational-
efficient.
Party Goals
Grassroots Youth Mobilization: Difficult and CostlySince, grassroots mobilization of new voters, esp new young people is
difficult, time consuming … parties have begun to focus more on converting independent voters .
Party Strength
Party Strength (171)Also, given the cost, author predicts, Strong Parties more likely than Weak
parties to try to engage new, youth voters.
Hypothesis 2: (Party Strength)Stronger Parties (IV: Cause) more likely than Weak parties to try to mobilize
youth voters (DV: Effect).
Electoral Competitiveness
Electoral Competition: Studies have suggested that Youth Voting is related to competitiveness (Franklin 2004).
But is unclear why. Two theories: 1) Is it because parties are more aggressive reaching to voters2) Or because voters feel uncertain about the outcome of the election
Electoral Competitiveness
Hypothesis 3: (Electoral Competition)Parties that face competition (IV) more likely to mobilize youth (DV).
The Data
The Data Data sets:
Survey of 805 county party leaders Census data (which provide county specific variables). County-by-county results form 2000 and 2004. Voter turnout date form 27 states (purchased)
Variables
Dependent Variables: Effects (172)Party has Youth Engagement ProgramWillingness of Party to attract Youth VotersOverall YE efforts (reg prog, GOTV)Perceived success of progs
Independent Variables
Party GoalsParty StrengthElectoral Competition
Measurements
Party Functions (Goals) and Youth Engagement Party leaders asked to describe party type: Rational-Efficient or Responsible. Results: parties are split. (Table 7.2)
Findings
Goals: clearly shape attitudes toward Youth EngageResponsible Party more willing to engage youth than rational-efficient. Party Strength (174)Stronger parties are more likely to engage youth. Electoral Competition Data also suggests that there is a positive correlation between ElectoralCompetition and youth engagement by parties.
Measures of central tendency: Review
Theory 1: There is a relationship between party strength (concept 1) and democracy (concept 2).
Theory 2 : There is a relationship between party strength (concept 1) and voter turnout (concept 2).
Hypothesis 1: (Party Type)Responsible Party (IV) more likely to mobilize youth than rational-efficient.
Hypothesis 2: (Party Strength)Stronger Parties (IV: Cause) more likely than Weak parties to try to mobilize
youth voters (DV: Effect).
Hypothesis 3: (Electoral Competition)Parties that face competition (IV) more likely to mobilize youth (DV).
26
Measures of central tendency:
Hypothesis 1: (Party Type)Responsible Party (IV) more willing to mobilize youth than rational-efficient.
Hypothesis 2: (Party Strength)Stronger Parties (IV: Cause) more likely than Weak parties to try to mobilize
youth voters (DV: Effect).
Hypothesis 3: (Electoral Competition)Parties that face competition (IV) more likely to mobilize youth (DV).
Operational DefinitionsIV: Stronger Parties: Budget, staffing, fundraising (State Parties, SOS)DV: Mobilize Youth: Youth Engagement Program (State Parties, SOS)IV: Competition: Electoral Results, Voter Registration Numbers (SOS) DV: Mobilize Youth: Youth Engagement Program (State Parties, SOS)
27
Measures of central tendency:
Operational DefinitionsIV: Stronger Parties: Budget, staffing, fundraising (State Parties, SOS)DV: Mobilize Youth: Youth Engagement Program (State Parties, SOS)
Selection Bias: Look at all fifty states, all states in a region, pick states randomly.
Falsification: Only US, only a specific region, only Republican state parties, only parties with more than 50 staff…
IV: Competition: Electoral Results, Voter Registration Numbers (SOS) DV: Mobilize Youth: Youth Engagement Program (State Parties, SOS)
Selection Bias: Look at all fifty states…Falsification: Only US…
28