Almost without exception, you'll find that the colour pattern of most electoral maps corresponds to the quite distinct political cultures of rural and urban areas. In periods like the present, when there is no mass joblessness and social turmoil, social issues tend to be paramount. Typically, conservatives don't do well in cities because they're associated with "rural" values -religiousity, patriarchy, hunting, individualism, etc. - and liberals don't do well in the countryside beside they're associated with "cosmpolitan" ones, especially those pertaining to the rights of working women, gays, racial and ethnic minorities, trade unions, etc. as well as freedom of artistic and intellectual expression. It's tempting to say that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of rural-urban suspicion and conflict, except that class alliances have often cut across this traditional divide in periods of social breakdown and unrest.
This has to be the starting point of understanding voting behaviour - whether in the US, in Canada, in Poland, or any other capitalist democracy. Trying to explain political motivation and political outcomes in terms of those who like to participate in rituals or be associated with the winning side or are attracted to the perosnal qualities of individual candidates offers nothing near in the way of explanatory or predictive power. ------------------------------------------- Wojtek wrote:
> However, being a sociologist gives you a smorgasbord of behaviors models
> that do not make the rational choice or even the mentalist (i.e. states of
> mind leading to behavior) assumption. With that in mind, I suggest two
> behavioral models of voting.
>
> First, voting is a form of symbolic interaction - a form of participatory
> ritual that connects people to each other and creates a sense of a social
> bond and belonging - like religious rituals (dances, feasts, prayers)
> cultural rituals (going to cultural events, concerts, performances,
> sporting
> events, etc.), family rituals (Turkey day dinners, family reunions) etc.
> In the same drift, people vote because they feel the need to be connected
> to
> the larger social entity called America (or Germany, or Mother Russia, or
> any other nation) - even though that sense of belonging is the only
> gratification they obtain. This explains why in countries where the
> utilitarian outcomes of voting is close to nil (e.g. in one party states)
> voter participation is still high, even higher than in the US.
>
> Conversely, people who have no need to be connected to a larger community
> or
> nation do not bother to vote. They may feel the need to be connected only
> to a much smaller local community or even family and thus engage only in
> those social bonding rituals that are appropriate for those local or
> familiar communities (e.g. anything from outings at the local fire
> company,
> to bowling, hunting, family picnics, etc.), or perhaps have no need to be
> connected at all, in which case they do not engage in any rituals either
> national (voting) or local (bowling, picnics). I believe that due to a
> highly developed individualism in the US, the latter group is much larger
> than in most other countries, hence the voting participation is much lower
> despite its relatively high utility (e.g. comparing to one party states).
>
> Another behavioral model that I find useful comes from the "garbage can"
> theory of organizational behavior. This model basically holds that in
> situations with multiple and frequently changing stakeholders, the most
> likely outcome is that that the least objectionable to the particular set
> of
> stakeholder that happen to be involved at any particular time. However,
> and
> equally importantly, the parties would ex-postfacto justify that outcome
> in
> terms of their prevailing ideologies. For example, the company management
> make decide on a course of action that is least likely to be opposed by
> the
> various stakeholders, but will justify that decision in terms of
> maximizing
> efficiency and competitiveness that form a core belief of managerial
> ideology. Likewise, voters may cast their vote on the person whom they
> perceive, for whatever reasons, as the most likely winner, which provides
> them with self-serving ideological assurance that they selected the best
> candidate for the country.
>
> In both cases, people participate in elections to obtain different
> emotional
> gratifications from the participation in the process itself, rather than
> from the outcome of that process. Therefore, it does not matter than much
> what actual policies the candidates propose - as most people have no time,
> skills, or both to evaluate the costs and benefits of those policies. The
> only things that matter are whether a person has a need to belong to a
> larger social entity (a state or a nation) and the likeability and sex
> appeal of the candidates. Stated differently, voting is no different than
> participation in any other popularity contest or pageant. The voters have
> no stakes in the outcome - it does not really matter to them whether Miss
> X
> or Miss Y wins. What matters is whether participating in the pageant
> "connects" them to others, and whether the winners are likeable.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>