Introduction
The recent American elections shows that there are a lot of issues undesirable about presidential elections and the process of voting. Despite theory, voting is not a private action, except in the most literal sense. A ballot is cast by each individual–at least where honesty prevails–but the voter’s decision is not the result of isolated contemplation. Rather, the individual is influenced by the groups to which he or she belongs and with which he or she identifies. “A person thinks, politically, as he is, socially” wrote the authors of the first academic election survey. This statement is an exaggeration, but it correctly points to the social influences on the voter. If electoral judgments were simply individual decisions, there would be only random differences in the voting patterns of social groups. There is a need to change the understating of the presidential elections and concentrate on a personality and leadership skills of a candidate rather his party policies and promises.
Analysis
Of the various influences on the electorate, the most important is the political party. Party identification affects not only the vote but the individual’s perception of the entire political world. It develops early in life, before there is any detailed understanding of public issues and governmental institutions. By the fourth grade, a majority of schoolchildren have been found to identify with a political party. Once established, this loyalty is highly resistant to change: less than one-fifth of Americans have ever fully reversed their party fidelity. Larger proportions have changed to Independent, and a majority ofvoters has occasionally voted for an opposition candidate. Nevertheless, despite the many upheavals in recent American politics, party loyalty is the most stable of all attitudes, and shows as little individual change today. Following Shaw, “Voters are Rejecting Republican Ideology, Not Just Bush and McCain” (2008). White-collar and manual workers, college and high school graduates, Protestants and Catholics, small-town and big-city residents, whites and blacks–each group would divide its vote between the parties in similar proportions. In fact, these groups differ in their political behavior. In each of the pairs listed, the first group shows relatively more support for the Republicans, and the second group is more favorable to the Democrats (Barbaranelli1199).
This problem is difficult to avoid because of historical traditions and norms established for elections. Voter evaluation of candidates is strongly affected by party identification. The effects of party identification are pervasive. It is not surprising to find that Democrats tend to select Democratic candidates and that Republicans also follow the path of electoral regularity. The consequences of partisanship are much broader, however, and affect perceptions as well as attitudes. In order to change this situation, the government and authorities should introduce a completely new system of political ideology based on a personality of a candidate and his politics rather than a party system. The elections show that the many voters does not select between Obama or McCain but between the Republicans and Democrats. Partisanship exists independently, even persisting in the face of disagreement with party policies. Many white southerners, for example, remain both Democrats and segregationists, despite the party’s activity on behalf of civil rights. This persistent Democratic identification is an archaic remnant of the Civil War and Reconstruction; although these events are irrelevant in present politics, they continue Democratic dominance in most decisions. This system is an ideal one for the Congress elections but it does not fit well the presidential campaign. Current political system means voters use to reconcile these possible conflicts is projection, assuming that their party supports their views. This tendency is evident on many issues, for example the emotional question of women’s rights. It is assumed here that the voters will be primarily concerned with general and vital issues. Like the belief in individual decision, the assumption that policy is central to the electorate frequently is contrary to empirical evidence. Voters are concerned with more than issues, and sometimes to the exclusion of issues. Moreover, the necessary conditions for voting on the basis of policy questions are not always met. Rather than issues, much of electoral behavior can be explained as a judgment on the individual candidates. Because voters cannot devote their lives to understanding the complexities of politics, they are likely to emphasize judgments of the individual contestants (Shaw 2008).
Because individuals are affected by their group memberships, it is argued that their views are determined by these affiliations. Because party identification is a crucial influence, it is held to be unchanging and a sufficient explanation of the vote. Policy questions are presumed to have no influence on electoral judgments because voters do not have a developed philosophy of government. Since policy judgments are often based on partial or incorrect information, the voters are presumed incompetent or subject to manipulation by artful strategists. Sociological influences are not controlling or fixed. Never complete, they also vary with individual involvement in the group and with political circumstances. A glance at table 4.1 indicates the limitations of sociological explanations. Groups are usually divided between the two major parties. There are tendencies toward the Democrats or Republicans, but a sizable minority almost always acts in opposition to the trend. A personality of the leader should be the main priority for voters (Shaw 2008). The presidential elections determine the head of the state and the political directions followed by the country. On issues relatively remote from individuals, such as foreign or macroeconomic policy, many changes in opinion seem to be the result of random responses to questions rather than expressions of deep consideration. Even when opinions are real, voters do not necessarily cast ballots on the basis of these opinions. Party loyalty and candidate attractiveness typically are more decisive. Individuals are also prone to distort their perception of candidates to fit their own beliefs. The problem is that as a Catholic an individual may be prone to support the Democrats, but as a businessman he may tend to vote Republican. It is difficult to learn the votes of such individuals on the basis of sociological collectives alone (Barbaranelli 1199).
Summary
In sum, the change in ideology and understanding the presidential elections will benefit the voters and the country paying more attention to a candidate and his leadership and strategic skills. The voters will choose the best person who rule and guide the country rather than a part. When questioned about ideology, voters tend to be predominantly conservative to moderate. Yet, when it comes to actual policy issues, the electorate favors liberal positions on many issues, such as providing welfare for the poor or federal guarantees of medical service. Deeply felt beliefs would be maintained over time, but political attitudes change considerably over periods of two or four years. Individuals, moreover, fall into more that one category a social class, a religion, a residential group, and so on. In a considerable proportion of the cases, belonging to different categories causes “across-pressures” on the individual.
Works Cited
Barbaranelli, Ch. Voters’ personality traits in presidential elections. INIST pp. 1199-1208.
Shaw, R. Voters are Rejecting Republican Ideology, Not Just Bush and McCain. 2008. Web.