Why do we vote the way we do?

By Megan Bradshaw on June 26, 2018

Towson University associate professor John McTague talks with the TU Newsroom about voters’ motivation and the effect of social media on voting behavior.

How educated are voters on candidates and their positions? 

In general, the vast majority of Americans pay relatively little attention to the day-to-day of government or politics. They may tune in more when it comes to presidential campaigns, but once we go further down the ballot to state and local races, and those elections occurring “off-cycle” when there isn’t a presidential election, there is relatively little knowledge about specific candidates and their positions. Voters tend to be more knowledgeable than non-voters, which in part explains their increased likelihood of turning out to vote in the first place.

Once they’re in the voting booth, voters tend to decide on the basis of partisan identification, which political scientists understand to be a deeply rooted social identity that forms early in adulthood and remains stable across one’s lifetime. This partisan identity is itself highly informed by other relevant social identities, such as race, religion, social class, sexual orientation, and gender.

In voting on the basis of party identification, people are making an informed decision of a sort. They generally know what Republicans stand for versus what Democrats stand for, whether they match up more with one party or the other, and whether one party or the other tends to represent the interests of people from their own social group identities. Independents tend to be less knowledgeable about candidates than partisans and less likely to vote at all.

Likewise, most Americans do not have a coherent political ideology, with Independents less likely than partisans to have a consistent set of beliefs with an underlying philosophy connecting disparate issues. Perhaps as little as 10 percent or even fewer Americans have what political scientists would identify as coherent “liberal” or “conservative” ideologies.

How has this changed over the years? Were earlier American voters more or less educated about candidates?

I think the level of knowledge has changed less than the information environment in which American voters find themselves navigating politics. It used to be that there was a local or regional newspaper of record and a few network news programs that dominated the media landscape. Now it is simply far more diverse in the number and variety of news sources, and it is easier to consume information that already aligns with one’s own predispositions. We don’t all get our news from Walter Cronkite anymore.

Instead, if I’m a political liberal, I can tailor my social media newsfeeds, set my cable news channel to MSNBC, and never encounter a perspective that deviates from the left-leaning worldview. The same is true on the right. I don’t think we’re less knowledgeable than earlier periods. I think instead that we’re much more siloed into our own information bubbles than before, which has the effect of polarizing us and reinforcing the power of partisan identification. When there is such an overabundance of information and sources, it’s much easier to default to our own partisan identities when considering our voting options.

“Fake news” played a huge role in the 2016 presidential election, some of which could be the fault of foreign powers. Have other countries meddled in U.S. elections?

It is difficult for me to answer this question because the very nature of foreign meddling in elections is that it is intended to be covert. Having said that, foreign nations, including the United States vis-à-vis other countries’ elections, are always trying to influence the outcomes of elections to their own interests. I am not surprised that Russia sought to influence the U.S. election, and I am fairly certain it was neither the first, nor the last occasion.

How have efforts to sway voters' opinions of candidates by campaign teams evolved over the years?

New technologies have always changed the way campaigns try to woo voters to their side. This was true with the advent of the printing press, radio, television, direct mail operations, the internet, and social media. Campaign professionals must always guard against thinking they have it figured out, because as soon as they do, a new method for winning votes will emerge. A good example from 2016 was the difference in focus between the Clinton and Trump campaigns.

While the Clinton campaign ran a relatively safe campaign in its advertising and voter-targeting methods, the Trump campaign was more effective at using social media to find persuadable voters. The Trump team spent a lot less but effectively won the votes in the places needed to emerge as the victor in the Electoral College. I would caution the Trump campaign for reelection from thinking it can run the same playbook in 2020. Campaigns that fight the last war often end up failing to innovate in ways that win the current war.