Report: Why do some people vote in elections while others do not?

By Simon Deng Kuol Deng, New Hampshire, USA

April 27, 2016 (SSB) —- Abstract. People who cast their votes or abstain their votes in elections organized by democratic or authoritarian states are defined by the constitutions and laws of their respective states as citizens who have rights and privileges to vote in election. Unlike authoritarian, or some democratic states which have compulsory voting laws where voters can face the penalties when they vote in elections against what the state authorities want or abstain, voters from some democratic states with no compulsory voting laws are voluntarily voted in election or abstained without facing penalties for abstaining. What is a cause of political phenomenon which concern political researchers or scientists to ask “why do some people vote in elections, while other do not vote”? A root cause of political phenomenon in which some voters vote, while others abstain is based on the voters’ greatest expectations and prospects for the public and individuals’ interests to be addressed by the candidates, but it is also depended on voters’ political knowledge and interest in politics, included strengthen in party identification. This paper intends to analysis the eligible voters’ roles in voting or abstaining, what motivate the older voters, voters who interest in politics, and voters who strengthen in party identification as indicate at the following hypothesizes: (1) Older citizens are more likely to vote in elections than younger citizens are; (2) Citizens who interest in politics are more likely to vote in elections than citizens who not interest in politics; and (3) citizens who strengthen in party identification are more likely to vote in elections than citizens who not strengthen in party identification.

Introduction. Eligible voters’ decision to vote, or abstain as depending on expected utility, which is a function of differential benefits received from the success of a preferred candidate, the probability that the citizen’s vote would be decisive, and the costs of voting (Blais & Young, 1999). Before election, voters are more likely preferred to cast their votes in elections for the candidates who can implement the programs which maybe beneficially to them, or abstain if the candidates are merely focused of how to motivate them to vote for them in elections without their expecting utility or benefits. Some of programs, which the voters expect to be addressed by candidates are: security services, foreign affairs, health, education, airports, roads and bridge, cleaning water, electricity, environment, commercial activities, tenders, scholarships or loans to the student, employments, and benefits to the vulnerable people, etc. Voters behaviors in election times depend on candidates’ commitments to address the voters’ benefits and public programs or services that may maximize their possibility of voting to elect or reelect them (candidates) (Fleck, 1999). Voters expect candidates to be the persons with the experience and knowledge and interest in politics to explain the programs policy areas of how they will govern when they have elected into the public offices in order for the voters to vote for them. An expressive voting by voters may help to explain what they vote for and also expressive voting may help to explain the voters’ turnout (Fischer, 1996).

When, voters are motivated and influenced by candidates that election is based on the programs which may be beneficially to them and the public, then, their behaviors may change in favorably of casting their votes in Elections Day. In the democratic states, voting is interpreted by their laws as a duty and right of eligible citizens to vote in elections. Nevertheless, some eligible voters are interpreted voting as the means in which they may search for the candidates who can provide the full attentions to support their interests. Some voters are considered voting as a duty, while others are considered voting as the means in whom they may pursuit for the candidates who can provide both, the public interests and special interests. Two Empirical researchers, Ahuja & Chhibber (2012) had discovered that voters’ behaviors are influenced by relationship of state through its approach to motivate and influence voters that voting is a duty and right of citizen to participate in elections to elect or reelect the rightful leaders. They stated that “the recognition the state grants to the voters on Election Day leads them to view voting as a valued right, one that gives them a rare chance to associate with those who govern as equals” (P 389). Voters were explained to the researchers in the same motivation way that they turned out to vote in election because it is their right and national duty that they must do, otherwise they cannot have any moral right to protest government policies (Ahuja & Chhibber, 2012). Whereas, other voters had explained that their participation in elections is for both, the personal benefits and civic duty (Ahuja & Chhibber, 2012).

The turnout rate is depended of how the candidates may motivate and influence the pro-public programs voters and pro-individual programs voters to vote in elections. This shed light on the way turnout influence distribute policy through providing the incentives for electing or reelecting politicians’ candidates (Fleck, 1999). Casting the votes or abstaining the votes by both, pro-public and individual programs voters, depend on the candidates’ leaderships. Democracy system creates a tendency for government to set policy that improves politicians’ prospects for winning election or reelection (Fleck, 1999). This may occur because politicians design policy for the purpose of winning election, or it may occur because election sort into office those politicians who, for ideological or other reasons, tend to set policy that wins votes (Fleck, 1999). Key consideration of distributive policy in 1930s was the extent to which voting behavior responded to distributive policy (Fleck, 1999). In the democratic states, where there are not voting compulsory laws, elections are simply elections in which voters are voluntarily decided to cast their votes or abstain their votes without serious penalties.

Preliminary Hypothesizes. Preliminary hypothesizes about my research question aimed at answering political phenomenon in which some people vote in elections, while other not vote are rested as following: (1) Older citizens are more likely to vote in elections than younger citizens are; (2) Citizens who interest in politics are more likely to vote in elections than citizens who not interest in politics; and (3) citizens who strengthen in party identification are more likely to vote in elections than citizens who not strengthen in party identification. In the democratic states, there are expressive and instrumental voting. Fischer (1996) stated that “expressive voting is an important question, because the answer provides insights into explaining voter turnout i.e., to help explain why people vote, as well as whether their vote ever changes as a result of a change in the probability that their vote will decide the election (i.e., to help explain what people vote” (p 171) While, a vote which is instrumental has the capacity for altering the outcome of an election (Fischer, 1996). An instrumental voting is a voting behavior influence through utility meant for outcome because it perhaps allows the voters to use the ballots as instruments for determination of achieving political gain. Whereas, an expressive voting is a voting behavior influence through personal utility actions because it perhaps reflects the voters’ preferences over others. Eligible voters are considered elections as events, which expressive and instrumental voting principles are determined the turnout in election.

In political science in general, and in voting research in particular, it is also necessary to consider the interface between the choice of individuals and the world of party politics and government policy (Goodin & Klingemann, 2011). Ideally, one would hope that the preferences of individual voters are consistent enough for them to be expressed in a precise utility functions which is not just the trivial outcome of measurement by flat (Goodin & Klingemann, 2011). Theoretically, it seems that one’s present party preference profile must be influenced by the profile of an earlier period, there has to be some continuity in these preferences (Goodin & Klingemann, 2011). The concept of party preference is, of course, related to the concepts of party identification (Goodin & Klingemann, 2011). What may look on the surface like a clear candidate for a momentary general party preference may thus contain information on more permanent aspects of party preferences, measuring an attitude somewhere in between a momentary and permanent preference (Goodin & Klingemann, 2011). This interpretation comes close to party identification as a running tally of retrospective evaluations (Fiorina 1981: 89; Goodin & Klingemann, 2011) for every party, a voter perceives as relevant, where she/he continually adds positive evaluations for each party and subtracts negative ones depending on experiences during legislative periods (Goodin & Klingemann, 2011). A political phenomenon in which some voters vote, while other do not is rooted on what Sigelman et al. (1985) stated that sociological factors such as ages and psychological factors such as interests in politics and, strength in the party identification or ideologies’ preferences, and perceived difference between the parties” (P 752).

What Motivate Older Voters to Vote in Election? Older voters, in elections may figure out how to fulfill their citizens’ duties efficiently vote correctly at higher rates than younger voters in elections where party affiliation is probably the most important difference between the major candidates (Lau & Redlawsk, 2008). Other researchers had mentioned that age has often shown to be one of the leading predictors of voter turnout (Sigelman et al., 1985; Lau & Redlawsk, 2008) were also predicted that age may have positive effects on political knowledge, party memories, and candidate memories, because these scales reflect the type of information that can accumulate with greater experience (P 178). Memory structures, and information input, processing and retrieval are modeled by psychologists for individual persons (Goodin & Klingemann, 2011). Age had considered by Lau & Redlawsk (2008) as a surrogate for experience on knowledge and memories that are accumulated with age of how the political system works or memories of the political parties or of actual candidates who have been on the political scene for extended periods of time (p 173). Having a store of political knowledge makes understanding new political information so much easier, provides a context in which new information can be interpreted and makes understanding quicker and more easily integrated with prior knowledge (Lau & Redlawsk, 2008). Older voters rely on different information in making their vote decisions or rely one political heuristic such as party or liberal-conservative identification for remembering and compensating for the absence of more detailed and specific information about the candidates (Lau & Redlawsk, 2008). The techniques for influencing government depend on voters who have experiences and knowledge to know the best candidates who have experiences and knowledge to know the priority programs of government that are really needed by the citizens. Citizens in a democracy have few ways to influence their government, and most people do little beside voting (Lau & Redlawsk, 2008) and other voters’ interest in politics and attention to the public affairs to gain knowledge to influence their government.

Voters’ Interests in Politics. Lau, Anderson, & Redlawsk (2008) stated that “democracy works best when citizens are interested in politics, able to place current events in proper historical context, attentive to the actions of representative in government, aware of institutional rules and requirements so that responsibility for government actions can be properly attributed, and engaged in the governing process to extent they vote to for the candidates they believe best represent their interest” (395). Citizens in modern democracies are continuously exposed to a steady flow of political information from the mass media, from discussions in their everyday lives, and so on (Goodin & Klingemann, 2011). Voters who are most interested in politics and followed news about public affairs are more likely to vote in elections (Sigelman et al, 1985). But, not everyone is interested in politics all the time; some people may have difficulties inferring from news about democratic affairs and conclusions about the roles of parties and consequences for their party preferences (Goodin & Klingemann, 2011).

Nevertheless, voters have a tendency to search for the leaders who have skills, experiences, and knowledge to show their commitments to address public and individuals’ interests, especially, during the campaigns season before they cast their votes in elections. In classic democratic theory, citizens are required to possess sufficient amounts of political relevant information in order to behave rationally at the polls (Neuman, 1986; & Oscarsson, 2007). Increasing levels of campaign attention prompt citizens to gather information about candidates and issues, form judgments about them, establish preferences between the candidates, and then decide whether to vote (Ragsdale & Rusk, 1990). A politically interested, knowledge and attentive public repeatedly has been identified as essential for the effective workings of representative democracy by (Lippman, 19922; Berelson et al., 1954; Luskin, 2003; Lupia & McCubbiens, 1998; & Oscarsson, 2007). However, one of the most robust of contemporary social science is that most voters are chronically ignorant of political matters (Neuman, 1986; & Oscarsson, 2007). While, most voters expect the candidates to express programs and policies areas on how they may govern when they elected into the public offices, so that they can confirm their interests on the candidates’ programs and policy areas to make their final decisions, or abstain if their interests on the programs and policy areas are not confirmed.

Voters’ decisions about which candidates to support, result from the decisions scenarios, political interest or ignorance, difference or indifference on the issues, satisfaction or dissatisfaction, and activity or inactivity, each of which involves a different level of campaign attention (Ragsdale & Rusk, 1990).  Voters may differ in their perception s of how much the policy positions of the parties differ with respect to the basic ideological dimension (Goodin & Klingemann, 2011). Some voters perceive rather large differences between left and right parties with respect to redistributive issues; other may think that nowadays left and right parties do not differ very much concerning such issues (Goodin & Klingemann, 2011). Some sometimes said why vote at all, when the expected utility of one’s own participation is very small or even negative, considering the participation costs (Goodin & Klingemann, 2011). Ballot measures often establish or repeal important fiscal, social, and policies that effect citizens and regulate the flow of billions in public funds, and they often pose complex policy questions that are unfamiliar or challenging to the average voter (Wells, et al., 2009). With so much on the line in elections, it is important to improve voters’ understanding about the issues on which they believe to vote, where they get information, and the degree to which they believe affect their voting choices (Wells, et al., 2009). Sigelman et al. (1985) stated that “those who are most interested in politics and who follow news of public affairs most closely have often been shown to be more likely voters, while those who take only minimal interest and who devote little time and effort to keeping themselves informed tend to be nonvoters” (754).

 Strength in Party Identification. The concept of Party identification emerged from the most important and enduring work on political partisanship in The American Voter and it is a long-term psychological attachment to a political party (Weinschenk, 2010). The social psychological theory of party identification presented in The American Voter Suggests that party identification develops early in one’s life and is influenced by one’s parents through the process of political socialization (Weinschenk, 2010). Over time, people form an affective attachment to a particular party, which persists throughout the course of the lives and shapes their views and evaluations of politics (Weinschenk, 2010). Unlike monarch, authoritarian states, where all programs are decided by one ruler or one party, democratic states, all programs are divided by political parties with difference party identification or ideology. Party identification colors citizens’ evaluations of programs or issues, candidates, and political events, it plays a fundamental role in their vote choice (Weinschenk, 2010). Political party organizations are used to have the similar programs such as security services, foreign affairs, health, education, airports, roads and bridge, cleaning water, electricity, etc. in their platforms.

Nevertheless, political parties might have the different policies’ areas of how their leaders will address the public or individual interests according to the principles of their political parties’ identifications or characteristics. Fiorina’s theory also represents an attempt to integrate the rational choice perspective into voting behavior literature (Weinschenk, 2010). In contrast to the idea that political behavior stems primarily from socialization and psychological forces, rational choice theory suggests that individuals are utility maximizers, who try to achieve their goals by acting as rationally as their resources allow (Weinschenk, 2010). In the context of party identification, the rational choice approach suggests that individuals will alter their political identifications when they are not getting the outcomes they desire (Weinschenk, 2010). Fiorina (1981); and Weinschenk (2010) stated that “these experiences represent an individual’s subjectively weighted retrospective evaluations formed while observing the postures and performances of the contending parties during previous election periods” (p 476). Although individuals may tolerate some negative experiences with parties, if their negative experience become severe enough, it is likely that they will change their party affiliation (Weinschenk, 2010).

In the democratic states, people used to divide and affiliate themselves with the political parties according to their preference political identifications, characteristics, or ideologies associated with their respective parties for the purposes of public, or individuals’ interests. Some people, in whom their political ideologies’ positions fall in meddle for 50 percentages between the other political parties may identify themselves as independents. Yet, they have the political rights to nominate their leaders to run on the programs they want to be implemented by their leaders when they elected, or vote to other parties, or abstain, if no preference leaders in the races. Weinschenk (2010) stated that “strengthen in party identification at more than the results of set of early socializing experience, possibly reinforced by subsequent social and political activity of voters” (475) to defense the values and program policies areas of their party.

Data and Methods. The Kentucky state data of 1978-1982 period were used by other four researchers through analyzing and comparing the characteristics of 50.2 percent of voters who did vote with the characteristics of the 49.8 percent of voters who did not vote (Sigelman, Roeder, Jewell, & Baer, 1985).

Table 1

Electoral participation Summary, Kentucky, 1978-1982 (Sigelman et al., (1985).

From table 1 summaries, some 38.3 percent of the voting-age public did not vote even once during 1978-1982, while those who voted from one to four times was classified as 36,7 percent of all voting-age Kentuckians as marginal voters (Sigelman et al., 1985). Within these categories of nonvoters and marginal voters. Sigelman et al. (1985) found that “only one-quarter from overall voters of the voting-age population voted in five or more elections, while, three quarters of all adults, Kentuckians-only one voter voted in seven and eight elections” (P 751).  Sigelman et al. (1985) were clearly looked for electoral participation category of voting-age population, both not registered and registered voters.

I intend to replicate and employ the statewide telephone survey methods in which Sigelman et al. (1985) were conducted and collected data in 1983 for two reason: first, there is connection between their research question “Voting and Nonvoting: A Multi-Election Perspective” and my research question “why do some people vote in elections, while others do not? Second, the characteristics or variables are involved in the Sigelman et al. (1985) research question, some of them have the data, which I can replicate for testing the hypothesizes or variables. Thus, I might be focused on the voting characteristics or variables of my research question such as data of older citizens, the data of citizens who had/have interested in politics, and the data of citizens who had/have strengthened in party identification for defining the variables of my three hypothesizes. In the telephone surveys, there were the total number of 2100 registrants and unregistered respondents. First sample of 1468 respondents was a registrant sample, stratified according to the number of elections in which each had voted in order to insure that adequate numbers of registrants at each level of electoral participation were represented (Sigelman et al.,1985). While, a second sample made up of 632 Kentuckians who were not registered to vote, was formed via a variant of random-digit dial, with only those who said they were unregistered being interviewed (Sigelman et al.,1985).

Model and Measurement for voting participation. As I have mentioned above early, I preference to replicate the data of Kentucky’s ten elections for testing the variables of my research question or hypothesizes. In the single-election studied, the dimension of voting participation was very straight ward, some people voted and while others did not (Sigelman et al., 1985). Here are some implications factors in voting participation or with the data of Kentucky’s ten lections. One of the complicating factors used by researchers when measuring voters’ turnout was the official voting records form their sample of registered voters (Sigelman et al., 1985). A second implication factor is involved the registered voters and non-registered voters ignored. Some registered voters are ignored to vote in elections, despite their first step efforts they had taken to register-indicating at least a modicum of political interest on their part (Sigelman et al., 1985). While, other eligible non-registered voters were constantly ignored the first step of their responsibilities to register because they did not see fit for them to invest even the minimal time and energy that are needed to register (Sigelman et al., 1985). The third implication is that, the researchers, (Sigelman et al., 1985) in their sample which contained “two types of respondents (voters and non-voters) were found 12 non-registered voters, registered voters who never voted and those who voted once, twice and so on up through those who voted in all 10 elections” (p 756). Whereas, the four complicating factor is that, (Sigelman et al., 1985) were “recalculated the number of elections voted in by determining how many of the 10 elections the respondents had, by age and residence, been eligible to vote in; dividing this number into the number of elections the respondents had actually voted in; and multiplying the resulting quotient by 10” (p 756). A voting participation model involves seventeen variables, but I resolve to consider the three variables out of fourteen variables for testing the ages, interest in politics, strength in party identification. Whereas, other fourteen variables such as race, gender, marital status, length of residence in state, county, level of education, economic status, public employment, attention to news, democratic identifier, republican identifier, party difference, external efficacy, and sense of citizen duty maybe considered as control variables. Thus, I intend to replicate the (Sigelman et al., 1985) data for testing what I have predicted that: older citizens; citizens who interest in politics; and citizens who strength in partisan or party identification are more likely to vote in elections than the younger citizens; than citizens who not interest in politics; and then citizens who strength in party identification.

The symbolic orders of age, interest in politics, strength in part identification and other fourteen control variables are: “Race: 0 is meant nonwhite, 1 is meant white; Gender: 0 is meant female, 1 is meant male; Age: age in years; Marital Status: 0 is meant not married, 1 is meant married; Length of Residence in the State or County: 0 is meant five years or less, 1is meant more than five years; Level of Education, has seven-point scales ranging from 0-4 years of schooling (1) to graduate work or degree” (7) (p757). Economic Status: 0 is meant poor-family in which their income is below $ 5,000, 1 is meant not poor-family in which their income above $ 5000, while Employment: 0 is meant not a public employee and 1is meant public employee (Sigelman et al., 1985). Interest in Politics. Sigelman et al. (1985) were asked respondents to response the following questions: “people differ in how much attention they pay to politics and elections, how about you? Would you say that you are (1) very much interested, (2) somewhat interested, (3) not very interested, or (4) not at all interested following politics and elections” (P 757)? Respondents were moreover responded to the two questions asked by Sigelman et al. (1985) about their Attention to Public Affairs: “about how many days a week do you read a newspaper? How many days a week do you watch a national network early evening news broadcasts” (P 757)? The symbolic orders for the Democratic or Republican Identification: 0 is meant not a democrat, 1is meant a democrat. Sigelman et al. (1985) were furthermore asked the respondents to response to an opened ended question: “do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or what? Follow-up: do you consider yourself a strong or not so-strong Democrat/Republican” (P 757)?

The symbolic orders of Strength in Part Identification are: 1 is meant Independent, Democratic/Republican-closer, 2 is meant not-so-strong Democrat or not-so-strong Republican, 3 is meant strong Democrat or strong Republican. The respondents were furthermore asked to response this following question: do you think of yourself as being closer to the Democratic or Republican Party (Sigelman et al., 1985)? Perceived Difference Between the Parties: a scale score ranging from -3 for those who perceived no differences to +3 for those who perceived great difference (Sigelman et al., 1985). The respondents were moreover asked to response to the two questions: “in general, do you think it makes any difference what political party is in office at the state and local level?” “How about at the national level? Do you think it will make any difference who is elected the next governor of Kentucky” (p 758)? In all three cases, the makes a difference response was coded +1, the makes no difference response -1, and do not know and 0; these three item scores were summed to form a scale (Sigelman et al., 1985). Sense of External Efficacy. A 0-1 scale from response on three items: it is not so important to vote when you know your party does not have any chance to win; a good many local elections are not important enough to bother with; and so many other people vote in the national elections that it does not matter much to me whether I vote or not” (p 758). Responses to each item ranged from 1 strongly agree to 4 strongly disagree (Sigelman et al., 1985). The three item scores were reversed and summed, and the sum was rescaled to range between 0 and 1 rather than between 3 and 12 and to measure the sense of duty rather than the lack of it (Sigelman et al., 1985).

Finding. The result of a multivariate probability analysis relating multi-elections voting participation to my three variables and fourteen other control variables above are summarized in Table 2 (Sigelman et al., 1985).

Table 2

Probit Analysis Summary (Sigelman et al., 1985).

*p .05**p .01 (both rests one-tailed).

Table 2 indicates, first, that 17 variables performed well, which rank-order correlation between actual values on the dependent variable and values predicted on the basis of the probability model as it was .541, demonstrating a reasonable good fit as estimated was .371 (Sigelman et al., 1985). Within the 17 predictor variables, only 5-race, attention to news, Republican, identification, Democratic identification, and sense of political efficacy-were failed to register significant independent impacts on participation in the 10 elections (Sigelman et al., 1985). However, the 12 remaining variables were significantly related to multi-election voter turnout, and in very case the relationship ran in the direction that would be predicted on the basis of earlier studies (Sigelman et al., 1985). Variables which are remained are: three variables such as older citizens; citizens who interest in politics; citizens who strengthen in party identification are more likely to vote in elections than younger citizens, then citizens who not interest in politics, and then citizen who not strengthen in party identification.

Moreover, the remained nine control variables in voting participation as mentioned earlier in the studied of Sigelman et al. (1985) are: “married people; people whose incomes did not place them in the lowest economic category; the more highly educated; those who had lived in the state and in the county for than five years; public employees; those who perceived major differences between the parties; and those imbued with a deep sense of citizen duty” (p760). The one with the most decisive impact among all independent variables was clearly age (Sigelman et al., 1985). The link between age in voting participation, in the table 3 has showed the predicted probability in relevant to who had a mean score on each of the 17 predictors in the probability model may fall into a given category of voting participation (Sigelman et al., 1985).

Table 3

Predicted Probabilities of Various Level of Participation, for “Average Citizens” and with Age Varying

In table 3, there are columns as earlier studied by Sigelman et al. (1985) indicated the first column probabilities for a hypothetical respondent who was perfectly average, but unusually old; perfectly average, but unusually young at the second column; and third column with unusually old and unusually young being defined as one standard deviation (16.9 years) above and then one standard deviation below the mean age 43.0 (p 760). When comparing the first and second columns, from earlier studied of Sigelman et al. (1985) the results indicated “35.6 percent of the perfectly average citizens maybe either non-registered voters, or registered non-voters; 21.2 percent of the otherwise average 60-year-old citizens may fall into these two categories; 16.7 percent of the 60-year-old average citizens maybe expected to have voted in at least 7 of the 10 years, but only 8.1 percent of the perfectly average citizens maybe fall into this category; and more than 60 percent of citizens may had voted somewhere between 1 and 6 times” (p 760). Among 26-year-old average citizens, 52.3 percent maybe non-registered voters or registered non-voters-represent two and one-half times of the expected probability for 60-year-old average citizens (Sigelman et al., 1985). Only 1 in 8 of the 26-year-old average citizens maybe voted in as many as 5 elections, contrast to the 37.8 percent estimate for the 60-year-old average citizens (Sigelman et al., 1985). Overall, 73.7 percent of 26-year-old average citizens may, according to the probability estimates, have voted in 2 or fewer elections during the preceding five years (Sigelman et al., 1985). The Table 3 demonstrates the strong effect of age upon the likelihood of registering and voting (Sigelman et al., 1985).

Inclusion. Eligible voters who may cast their votes in elections when they perceive that their important issues have been addressed by the candidates, or abstain when they have confirmed that candidates who are involved in the contests to be elected or reelected have failed to address their important issues which maybe either beneficially to them and their country, states, counties, or cities. What should be the important issues for the leaders of the political parties maybe likewise more likely the important issues, or maybe less likely the important issues to the voters, depends on the circumstances or events in the elections. Eligible voters’ decisions to cast their votes, or abstain is always depended on the utilities or the benefits they may be expected to receive from the candidates (Blais & Young, 1999). Voters depend on the important issues or programs which are beneficially to them and to their nation, states, counties, or cities in which they are resided. Thus, voters are more likely preferred to vote in elections for the candidates who might strengthen, revive or reform the important issues for the purposes of their utilities and their nation’s prosperity, or they might abstain if no candidates in the contests to strengthen, revive, or reform the important issues to them and to their nation.

On the other hand, not all eligible voters are considered voting participation in the elections as tools for electing the best qualify candidates who can strengthen, revive, or reform the important issues to them and to their nation. Nevertheless, the older voters, voters who interest in politics, and voters who strengthen in party identification are more likely to vote in elections than younger voters; than voters who not interest in politics; and likewise than voters who not strengthen in party identification. Lau & Redlawsk (2008) stated that “older voters, because their experiences and knowledge are constantly able to exercise and fulfill their citizens’ duties efficiently vote correctly at higher rates than younger voters in elections where party affiliation is probably the most important difference between the major candidates” (178). The one of the most decisive impact among all independent variables remains clearly age (Sigelman et al., 1985). Age had considered by Lau & Redlawsk (2008) as a surrogate for experience on knowledge and memories that are accumulated with age of how the political system works or memories of the political parties or of actual candidates who have been on the political scene for extended periods of time (p 173). The link between age in voting participation has showed the probability in relevant to who had a mean score on each of the 17 predictors in the probability model perhaps fall into a given category of voting participation (Sigelman et al., 1985).

Democracy works best when citizens are interested in politics, attentive to government actions, and properly attributed and engaged in the governing process to extent they vote to for the candidates they believe best represent their interest (Lau, Andersen & Redlawsk, 2008). Voters who are most interested in politics and followed news about public affairs are more likely to vote in elections (Sigelman et al, 1985). Yet, not everyone is interested in politics all the time; some people may have difficulties understanding from news about democratic affairs and conclusions about the roles of parties and consequences for their party preferences (Goodin & Klingemann, 2011). Whether, voters are interested in politics or not interested in politics, they likewise still having tendency to search for the best candidates who have skills, experiences, and knowledge to be able to show their commitments by addressing the issues which can be public and individuals’ utilities, especially, during the campaigns season before they cast their votes in elections. Some of issues which can be important to the voters in the elections, maybe the economy, healthcare, taxes, education, moral values, energy, etc.

All the issues or programs implement by public officials are initiated in the political parties and then listed them as well in the parties’ platforms in order for the parties’ candidates to convey them to the members of their parties and to the other independent citizens who may perceive their interests amongst the programs or issues of parties’ candidates. In the democratic states, all issues or programs are owned by political parties, even though they remain in the differences of political party identifications or characteristics. Therefore, voters who strength in party identification may be focused to defense their parties’ programs or issues, convey issues to the voters, and actually voted in the elections for their candidates for the purposes of implementing party programs when they have elected in the offices. Party identification colors citizens’ evaluations of programs or issues, candidates, and political events; it plays a fundamental role in their vote choice (Weinschenk, 2010). Hence, my 3 hypothesizes that are encompassed with the other 14 control variables which make the total of numbers to be seventeen predictor variables. But, the following 5 predictor variables: race, attention to news, Republican, identification, Democratic identification, and sense of political efficacy-were failed to register significant independent impacts on participation in the 10 elections (Sigelman et al., 1985) out of seventeen predictor variables.

Nevertheless, the 12 remaining variables were significantly related to multi-election voter turnout, and in very case the relationship ran in the direction that would be predicted on the basis of earlier studies (Sigelman et al., 1985).Variables remained are my 3 variables such as older citizens, citizens who interest in politics, citizens who strengthen in party identification are more likely to vote in elections than younger citizens, than citizens who not interest in politics, and as well than citizen who not strengthen in party identification. Furthermore, the remained nine control variables in voting participation as mentioned earlier in the studied of Sigelman et al. (1985) are: “married people; people whose incomes did not place them in the lowest economic category; the more highly educated; those who had lived in the state and in the county for than five years; public employees; those who perceived major differences between the parties; and those imbued with a deep sense of citizen duty” (p760).

In the democratic states, people used to divide themselves and affiliate themselves with the political parties according to their preference political party identifications for the purposes of public, or individuals’ interests. Some people, in whom their political party identification’s status scores on the political parties’ programs and policy areas are started from 51% up to 100% maybe more likely to be consider as members of political parties at the left or at the right. However, those people in whom their political party identification’s status scores on the political parties’ programs and policy areas are started from less than 50% or 50% between the other political parties maybe more likely to identify themselves as moderate or independents. Yet, they have the political rights to nominate their candidates to run on the issues or programs they want to be implemented by their candidates when they have elected, or vote to other parties, or abstain, if no preference candidates in the contests.

Simon Deng Kuol Deng, a candidate for Master of Science in Political Science, SNHU, U.S.A, can be reached at smndeng@yahoo.com

Reference:

1. Aaron C. Weinschenk (2010). Revisiting the Political Theory of Party Identification, 32, No. 4 (pp 473-494);
2. Ahuja Amit & Chhibber Pradeep (2012). Why the Poor Vote in India: If I do not Vote, I am Dead to the State, Springer Science + Business Media, LLC;
3. Blais Andre and Young Robert (1999). Why Do People Vote? An Experiment in Rationality, Vol. 99. No. ½ (PP. 39-55);
4. Chris Wells, Justin Reedy, John Gastil, and Carolyn Lee (2009). Information Distortion and Voting Choice: The Origins and Effects of Factual Beliefs in Initiative Elections, Vol. 30, No. 6 (PP 953-969);
5. Fischer A. J. (1996). A Further Experiment Study of Expressive Voting, 88, No. ½ (pp. 171-184);
6. Henrik Oscarsson (2007). A Matter of Fact? Knowledge Effects on the Vote in Swedish General Elections, 1085-2002, Vol, 30-No. 3 (301-322);
7. Ragsdale Lyn and Rusk Jerrold G. (1993). Who are nonvoters? Profiles from the 1990 Senate Election, Midwest Political Science Association, Vol. 37, No. 3 (PP 721-746);
8. Richard R. Lau, David J. Anderson, & David R. Redlawsk (2008), An Exploration of correct Voting in Recent U.S. Presidential Elections, 32, No 2, (PP 395-411);
9. Richard R. Lau and David P. Redlawsk (2008). Older but Wiser? Effects of Age on Political Cognition, 70, NO. 1 (pp 168-185);
10. Robert E. Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingemann (2011). A New Handbook of Political Science, Published in the United States, by Oxford University Press Inc., New York; and
11. Sigelman, Roeder, Jewell, and Baer (1985). Voting and Nonvoting: A Multi-Election Perspective, Midwest Political Science Association, Vol. 29, No. 4 (PP. 749-765).

About Post Author

PaanLuel Wël

administrator

PaanLuel Wël is the founder and editor-in-chief of PaanLuel Wël Media Ltd, a news website that covers news, opinions, analysis, history, culture and literature of South Sudan and the world. Founded in July 2011 by PaanLuel Wël to create a platform for free expression and constructive dialogue, the website features articles from various contributors, including columnists, commentators, poets, authors, activists and academics. PaanLuel Wël believes that media can play a vital role in informing, educating and empowering the people to participate in nation-building and social transformation. He also believes that media can foster a culture of dialogue, tolerance and diversity among different communities and groups, and hopes to inspire and mentor the next generation of South Sudanese writers and journalists.

See author's posts