conducta electoral 1

7/23/2019 Conducta Electoral 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conducta-electoral-1 1/25

Conducta electoral



Las elecciones: aspectos introductorios

• Rol fundamental en democracias modernas: Ellas suponen elreconocimiento de la voluntad popular en la vida política y

abren acceso en libertad al poder institucional y a su ejercicio.

• Son uno de los elementos dominantes del proceso político, donde elciudadano en su rol de elector, desempeña su papel políticofundamental.

• Son el instrumento intermedio entre la ciudadanía y el gobierno ylos partidos, donde las preferencias políticas de los votantes sonreflejadas en resultados electorales y estos en autoridades(representantes) y decisiones políticas.

- Las elecciones producen: -Gobierno.

- Representación.

- Legitimidad.- Otorgar mandato.

- Consolidar elites.

- Socializar a las personas.

- Influir en los partidos.



Los factores de influencia en la Conducta electoral.

• NIVEL DEL INDIVIDUO

• 1. Factores de Largo Plazo.

– Determinantes sociales del voto (clivajes electorales:religioso, clasista, autoritarismo)

– La Identificación partidaria.

• 2. Factores de Corto Plazo.

– La economía (prospectiva, retrospectiva, cicloseconómicos).

– Los políticos, el candidato.

– Issue voting

– Medios de comunicación.

– Campaña Electoral.

– Los estudios de Opinión.

• NIVEL DEL SISTEMA

– Sistema electoral

– Partidos

– Efecto incumbency



I Los determinantes Sociales del voto

• Larga Tradición electoral.

• Religión, Clase, etc.

• El declive (Dalton, Flanagan and Beck 1984; Franklin,Mackie and Valen 1992) o la continuidad (Evans

1999, Hout y Manza 1999)• Cuando hablamos de clase, ¿de que hablamos?.

• La significancia estadística del voto de clases en eltiempo.

• Top-down y bottom up approaches.

• ¿Cómo medir clase?

• Modelo que estime estabilidad y cambio en votospara diversos grupos sociales.



El modelo sociológico.(Inicios)• Rates at which different social, religious, geographical or other

groups vote for a particular party.

• The People’s Choice, Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson and HazelGaudet (1944). Voters tend to remain stable over time, only amodest amount of people switch to another party or candidate.

• For the sociological approach, the stability highlighted theimportance of social networks of friends, co-workers and family inconfiguring political preferences.

• In other words, it recognised the importance of reference groups,

such as sex, education, occupation, income, religion, age and race,because individuals were considered as interdependent with othersin socially homogeneous groups.



• Political Man, Seymour Martin Lipset Elections were the expressionof the democratic class struggle. While right-wing parties ->upperclasses, the left wing -> workers and centre parties -> middleclasses (Lipset 1963:204-207).

• Party Systems and Voter Alignment , Lipset y Stein Rokkan (1967).For the authors, the structure of contemporary political divisions isthe reflection of a complex set of historical processes. The nationalrevolution and the industrial revolution triggered these processes.Both revolutions produced conflicts of interest (social struggles)

which divided the population in-groups, and became associated withparty divisions and voting behaviour. – The industrial or economic revolution produced the basis of the conflict

between the landed interests and the rising class of industrialentrepreneurs or bourgeoisie and the conflict between owners andemployers on the one side and tenants, labourers and workers on theother (Lipset and Rokkan 1967:14; Lipset 2001:6).

– Controversial point: ―the party systems of the 1960s reflect, with few butsignificant exceptions, the cleavage structures of the 1920s‖ (Lipset andRokkan 1967:50).



El Modelo Sociológico (popularidad)

• Lack of individual data and Historical elections.

• Second, there is a clear causal relationship when social characteristics arecorrelated with the vote. The vote can be a consequence of social class,religion or gender, but the latter cannot be a consequence of the former.

• Third, Crewe (1995: 58) remarks that the sociological approach rests onmore reliable data than other studies. Aggregate data is, if properly

calculated, more accurate than surveys.

• Finally, the sociological approach has produced a set of empiricalpropositions about the social basis of the vote and of party systems. Alsothe cleavage model has proven to be a powerful tool to understand electoralbehaviour in Western Europe (Lipset and Rokkan 1967) and has someapplications to the new democracies of Eastern-Europe (Evans and

Whitefield 1999; Mateju, Rehakova and Evans 1999) and Latin America(Roberts 2000; Torcal and Mainwaring 2001), especially Chile (Scully 1992;Roberts 1998b).



Core elements of class politics (Clark 2001:274) • The class cleavage derives from differences on the occupational

categories, originally between white-collar and blue-collar workers.Economically disadvantaged people support parties they identify as supporting orrepresenting them, and oppose parties that they identify as supporting people inhigher-level occupations and income brackets. The same principle could beapplied to middle- and upper-class people. All are thought to support parties thatdefend their own interests.

• Left-wing parties, (especially socialist and communist), representthemselves as instruments of social change, expressing class differences

and appealing to blue-collar workers. Electoral support and party membershipsimilarly follow occupational cleavages. Something similar occurs with left-wingtrade unions. Conversely, left-, centre and right-wing parties are considered toappeal to higher occupational categories.

• Political issues tend to be oriented to the economy (work, production,salaries and economic equality).

• Social issues (abortion, divorce, gender and ecology), or political issues(human rights, constitutional reform and political participation), are lesssalient than economic issues or are addressed by linking them toeconomic issues—for example, social changes in the direction ofeconomic equality.

• Parties and voters can be classified in a left-right continuum, as they tendto act as if defined by their place in the continuum.



Class Analysis: Dead or Alive?

• Class importance and use has varied by sub

field in the last decade. – Electoral behaviour and sociology alive, PS dead.

• Contemporary debate:

– Controversial article by Clark and Lipset (1991):about the declining ability of social class to account for social

and especially political processes. Their article stated that classis an increasingly outmoded concept, because new forms of

social stratification are emerging. It also added that class voting

had declined in all Western democracies from 1945 to 1986 as a

result of changes in stratification.



• However, the literature on the decline in classpolitics and class vote received a strongresponse. These scholars, usually known as the

Oxford (Goldthorpe 1999; Evans 1999) andBerkeley (Manza and Brooks 1999) groups holdthat class is more persistent than its criticssuggest. They claim that the class basis ofpolitical competition has evolved, but notdeclined. Instead of class realignment, theyargue that the association between class andvote is subject to patterns of trendlessfluctuations, or that realignment is a

characteristic of some countries but not all.[1] [1] This was the conclusion of Heath, Jowell and Curtice (1985) forthe British case.



Explanations of the decline

• 1.- Class has lost some or all of its importance

as a determinant of life chances -> lostinfluence as a basis for the creation of

divergent political interests.

– ‗embourgeoisement‘ of the working class,

– ‗proletarianisation‘ of white-collar workers.

• 2.- new forms of social differentiation (such as

gender or race) have become nowadays moreimportant for political interests.



• 3.- > educational levels > calculative and ‗issueoriented‘ electoral decisions rather than responses toclass-based divisions.

• 4.-Increasing importance of post-material values. Thenew left-wing political parties are also drawing supportfrom the middle classes, further weakening the classbasis of left-right divisions.

• 5.-Since the working class is declining in numbers, left-wing parties have to direct their appeals to the middleclass if they are to win elections. This producesmoderation of the class character of left-wing political

appeals.



Bottom-up and Top-Down Approaches• Bottom-up ideas relate more to sociological perspective that changes in the

nature and composition of civil society have produced a decline of class

politics (Clark and Lipset 1991, 2001; Pakulski 1999), that socialcharacteristics became less important for voters (Dalton, Flanagan andBeck 1984), or that emerging new value orientations superseded old socialpredispositions (Inglehart 1990).

• Top down approach targets changes in political parties. Left-wing partieschanged their political appeals to the middle class as a result of changes inthe working class, in particular its decline in size. However, this position hasbeen considered ―naive‖ and deterministic since it omits left-wing parties‘―supply of strategic appeals as an intervening variable‖…and ―how politicalactors can mobilise or demobilise, advance or delay citizens‘ politicalpreference articulation in line with their own objectives‖ (Kitschelt 1993: 300,308). – Przeworski and Sprague (1986: 9) argued that ―the relative salience of class as a

determinant of individual voting behaviour is a cumulative consequence of thestrategies pursued by political parties of the Left.‖

– Mainwaring (1999: 55) notes that the bottom-up model functions poorly in ‗third-wave‘ democracies and calls for more attention to a top-down approach that canunderstand how ―third-wave party systems are specially subject to elite shapingfrom above.‖



Concepto de clase

• Crompton (1998:11-12) has identified three main conceptions of class. Inthe first, class is a symbol of prestige, status, culture or lifestyle. In thesecond, class is ―structured inequality (related to the possession ofeconomic and power resources).‖ The third identifies ―classes as actual orpotential social and political actors.‖

• 1- ‗objective categorical/descriptive‘ concept of class: , which outlines thepatterns of social inequalities (Pakulski 1993). – Classes are units of stratification—inequalities in societal power, wealth,

education, occupational prestige and so on—but inequalities do not necessarilyform the bases of identification and conflict. Classes are more determined by thetangible assets of wealth, income, occupation, education, or some combinationthereof. This concept of class, draws from Weber (1960).

• 2.-generative/explanatory and Marxist-inspired concept of class. – polarity and the conflict of classes, the antagonistic interests, the issue of class

consciousness and the idea of revolutionary change typical of thegenerative/explanatory and Marxist-inspired concept of class.



• The generative/explanatory concept of class is closer tothe Marxist conception; it introduces some ideas such asclass consciousness and direct forms of class

mobilisation that are very useful in analysing instances ofcollective action (Touraine 1985).

• However, the generative/explanatory definition is rarelyused in the context of electoral politics, largely becauseof the difficulties in measuring ideas such as class-consciousness, especially when a ―‗class-in-itself‘becomes a ‗class-for-itself‘, in Marx‘s famousformulation‖ (Manza and Brooks 1999: 55).

• Instead of focusing on the antagonisms between theowners of capital and blue-collar workers, it is morefruitful to conceive of class as a pluralist structure of

inequalities among different sectors of society, which iscommon in electoral behaviour (Manza and Brooks1999, Hout, Manza and Brooks 1999, Goldthorpe 1999).



Class vote or Class Cleavage• Bartolini and Mair (1990: 215) and Knutsen and Scarbrough (1995:

494) explain that the concept of cleavage encompasses three

different but intertwined levels or phenomena. – First, they recognise the existence of a social structural or empirical

element. This means that ―a cleavage is rooted in a relatively persistentsocial division which gives rise to ‗objectively identifiable groups withinsociety—according to class, religion, economic or cultural interests, orwhatever‖ (Knutsen and Scarbrough 1995: 494).

– Second, there is a normative or value orientation element: that is, the

set of values and beliefs common to the members of the groups, whichprovide a sense of identity to the previous element and reflect the ―self -consciousness of the social group(s) involved‖ (Bartolini and Mair 1990:215).[1]

– Finally, there is an organisational/behavioural or party-support element,which refers to the institutionalisation of the cleavage in, for example,political parties.[2]

• [1] This normative element was considered in the original Lipset and Rokkan (1967) research—see pages 5, 11,15, 18 and 19—whereas Inglehart materialist-postmaterialist theory (1990)encouraged the revalorisation of the value element in political cleavages.

• [2] As well as churches, trade unions and other associations.



Modelo de Identificación Partidaria

• En el modelo de Columbia énfasis colectivista , a nivel

micro responder a la pregunta: ¿Quién vota por quépartido?, y a nivel macro a la pregunta: ¿Qué partidosson apoyados por cuáles grupos sociales?

• En el modelo― de identificación partidaria‖ o de Michigan

-que también podríamos denominar tradicional – el votoes también una afirmación, pero no de pertenencia auna clase social, sino que corresponde a un largoproceso de identificación con un partido.

• A diferencia del modelo anterior, el énfasis esindividualista, ya que se considera que la persona comoente individual desarrolla una identificación sicológicaduradera con un partido a través de un proceso desocialización (Campbell, Converse, et al., 1960).



• La i dentificación partidaria es adquirida

inicialmente de la familia, luego reforzada por lapertenencia a ciertos grupos y, aunque parezcatautológico, por el voto por ese partido en eltiempo.

• El voto como acto de afirmación se refiere a quelos votantes no son totalmente libres en cadaelección, pues tienden a votan por el partido por elque se sienten más interpretados o cercanos. El

voto así es expresivo de la lealtad a unaformación partidista y menos instrumental. El votocomo opción implica que el votante es libre,decidiendo en cada elección según sus propiosintereses.



El votante individualista• Campbell, Converse, Miller y Stokes señalan que los

votantes no son sofisticados en su percepción de lapolítica porque: – No les interesa mucho la política.

– No gastan mucho tiempo en información política.

– No participan.

• No piensa de manera abstracta en política y “Voters arenot capable of making decisions based upon a rationalconsideration of the issues”.

• ―it is not true that attitudes toward the several elements of politics are only reflections of party loyalty or groupmemberships or of other factors that may lead to perceptualdistortion. … attitudes toward the objects of politics, varyingthrough time, can explain short-term fluctuations in partisandivision of the vote, whereas party loyalties and socialcharacteristics, which are relatively inert through time,account but poorly for these shifts” (Campbell et al. 1960:65).

• El túnel de la causalidad.



Modelo Socio-Psicológico de Michigan

Pertenencia a

grupo

IdentificaciónPartidaria

Actitudes a

grupos de

pertenencia

Actitudes a

políticas

Actitudes hacia

los candidatos

Voto

Influenciafamiliar



El túnel de la causalidad

Jakobsen 2013



Desarrollos del modelo• V.O. Key (1966) en The Responsible Electorate critica el modelo

señalando que existe cierta racionalidad en el electorado que seexplica que cerca del 50% se mantienen leal, 30% son votantesnuevos o que dejan de serlo y los cambiantes se mueven entre 13 y20%.

• Todos son votantes racionales que se ven afectado más por susevaluaciones del pasado (retrospective voting) que del futuro

(prospective voting). La nocion de prospetive y retrospective issuesfue recogida por Fiorina y la prospectiva en especial por Sniderman.

• El modelo de Michigan presenta un votante norteamericanorelativamente estable pero susceptible de cambio, lo que fuemencionado por Nie, Verba y Petrocik (1976) en The Changing

American Voter en una visión del desalineamiento al voto partidarios de los sesenta y setenta.

• Miller y Shanks (1996) adaptaron el modelos original para refljar loscambios en el votante norteamericano relativos a actitudes,problemas de causalidad en su modelo recursivo.



El modelo recursivo de Miller y Shanks (1996)

Características

SocialesX1

Voto

Y

Preferencias de

políticas públicas

X4

Evaluaciones

X3

Predisposiciones

EstablesX2

1

3

6 25

8

10 9

4 7



• El número de bloques depende de los

datos que se posean.

• El modelo causal se mueve en ambas

direcciones.

• Se puede modificar el modelo para

explicar la identificación por ejemplo para

Bartle.



El modelo recursivo para Clase social (Bartle 1998) Características

Sociales fijas yclase social padre

X1

Predisposición

estable

Y

Estilo de vida

X4

Identidad de clase

X3

Características

sociales adquiridasX2

1

3

6 25

8

10 9

4 7

conducta electoral 1

Documents