A lot has been written about the “swing voters” this election. I discount a lot of it. It is really hard to imagine people that have been following events and are truly “undecided” in a way that future events could change. What do I mean by this?
I think most undecided voters are likely one or more of the following:
- Decided, but don’t like the choices, and so don’t like to admit it.
- Not paying attention, and so not likely to be “decided” until late in the game, if they “decide” at all, and not likely to be swayed by events they don’t actually experience (given the situation the country is in, this is at least a small plus for Kerry, since most people are experiencing something pretty unpleasant (economy and Iraq) or know someone who is).
- Undecided because of permanent issues unresolved and in some ways irresolvable. Extremely strong anti-abortion viewers who are also extremely strongly against the death penalty and the Iraq war (I know a couple) would fit this criterion.
- People for whom being “undecided” is some sort of a fashion statement (I recently heard a person on NPR that sounded a lot like he fit this bill).
While I may have missed some people who are truly “undecided,” my guess is I got most if not the vast majority in the categories above. It may mean that trying to win undecideds is a waste of resources, as opposed to using your resources to shore up your base and turn out the vote. If I’m right, then barring disaster by one of the candidates, the presidential debates may not matter too much in the scope of things. They may be just like my estimation of the conventions, great for political junkies, of less consequence to the majority of voting Americans who can still be influenced this election cycle.
Comments 4
Hiram, your comments put me in mind of something I read recently (”The Unpolitical Animal,” by Louis Menand) in the New Yorker, about how people arrive at their voting decisions. If we are to believe the research he quotes (from political scientist Philip Converse, who published “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics” in 1964), only about 10% of people have a “political belief system.”
Converse claimed that only around ten per cent of the public has what can be called, even generously, a political belief system. He named these people “ideologues,” by which he meant not that they are fanatics but that they have a reasonable grasp of “what goes with what”—of how a set of opinions adds up to a coherent political philosophy. Non-ideologues may use terms like “liberal” and “conservative,” but Converse thought that they basically don’t know what they’re talking about, and that their beliefs are characterized by what he termed a lack of “constraint”: they can’t see how one opinion (that taxes should be lower, for example) logically ought to rule out other opinions (such as the belief that there should be more government programs). About forty-two per cent of voters, according to Converse’s interpretation of surveys of the 1956 electorate, vote on the basis not of ideology but of perceived self-interest. The rest form political preferences either from their sense of whether times are good or bad (about twenty-five per cent) or from factors that have no discernible “issue content” whatever. Converse put twenty-two per cent of the electorate in this last category. In other words, about twice as many people have no political views as have a coherent political belief system.
I particularly enjoyed (!) this paragraph:
Findings about the influence of the weather on voter behavior are among the many surveys and studies that confirm Converse’s sense of the inattention of the American electorate. In election years from 1952 to 2000, when people were asked whether they cared who won the Presidential election, between twenty-two and forty-four per cent answered “don’t care” or “don’t know.” In 2000, eighteen per cent said that they decided which Presidential candidate to vote for only in the last two weeks of the campaign; five per cent, enough to swing most elections, decided the day they voted.
So, however much I like your analysis, I expect we’ll find that there ARE folks out there who haven’t yet made up their minds, but they’ll come out and decide this election for us in the end. What will they base their decisions on? Almost makes on want to despair of rational argumentation…
Posted 20 Sep 2004 at 1:09 am ¶Hi Steve,
Thanks for the insightful comments! I’m not sure what I wrote disagrees with what you’ve said (I haven’t read the New Yorker article yet) - at least if you grant that what people say is not always what they believe. For example, I know some people who normally vote Republican that consider themselves independents - and would say that to people that asked. They are disgusted with the Iraq war, recognize the economy is not going as well as it had been for many people (even though they are not hit by it yet), and at times despair of Bush. That said, they are consistently more charitable towards Bush’s mistakes than Kerry’s. They suspect Kerry’s war medals, consider his position on Iraq convoluted, etc. While they consider Bush’s invasion of Iraq as comparable to the Vietnam War disaster-wise, Kerry is the one that seems to suffer the most heartfelt criticism. Why is this? It’s because they really are Republicans, and their sympathy lies there. How else can you explain their harsher criticism of Kerry’s medals (he unquestionably served in battle) vs. Bush’s limited National Guard attendance? How else can you explain their greater antagonism towards Kerry’s Iraq plans than their more respectful, if tremendously disappointed, view of Bush’s Vietnam that has killed over 1,000 in the U.S. military. How will they vote? I’m not sure, and they likely would consider themselves “undecided” if asked - but my guess, and it is that, is that they are decided - decided in a way a good salesperson would know what they were going to buy or not buy despite all the hemming and hawing.
Something akin to their thought process, I argue, is likely the thought process of many who are less politically aware - they likely know who they will vote for, even if they don’t know the candidate’s names. It may be they’re looking for machismo, or a charitable appearance, or the best looking candidate, or the one that speaks like them, or the one who is most conventional/unconventional, but they likely know if you were to really prod them about it (in a way polls never have the time to do). That is why I argue shoring up the base is the best way to win - I’m saying getting your people to the polls will yield more for the effort (and bring along ‘your undecideds’) than specific efforts to “change people’s minds” when they are likely made up.
Hard hitting press coverage, a major gaff, a major success, or something else of tremendous note may change the dynamics, but barring that I think it’s about voter turnout - and likely not the relatively little-watched debates.
Posted 20 Sep 2004 at 10:14 pm ¶What also strikes me about the whole “swing voter” thing is that there seems to be this false corrolation between swing voters and swing states. If you look at sites like Electoral-Vote.com you notice that the majority of swing voters are, by and large, from decidedly non-swing states. The swing states, for the most part have remarkably few undecided voters. Which goes to the argument that this election will be entirely about turnout.
Posted 21 Sep 2004 at 1:50 pm ¶While I haven’t had time to look at it yet, that’s a very interesting thought on this Glenn!
Part of what has bothered me about the “swing voter” (or “undecided”) concept is that nobody (it seemed) could easily find or identify who these supposed voters were. A lot of the articles have sounded just plain silly. Add that to a highly polarized electorate with highly polarizing issues/candidates, and it’s hard to imagine that the key to success is swing voters instead of turnout.
Posted 22 Sep 2004 at 12:28 am ¶Post a Comment