These rationales of thoroughly utilitarian and can actually be resolved by appeals to evidence. But the real reasons are the meddlesome preferences of the opponents of legalisation and the desire of the supporters of legalisation to smoke dope.
The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender population is one of the most Democratic demographic groups in the country. According to the 2012 national exit polls conducted by the National Election Pool, gay, lesbian, and bisexual adults voted for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by more than three-to-one (76% vs. 22%).
This Democratic advantage can be seen in the partisan identification of LGBT adults, a majority of whom are Democrats. It also expresses itself in policy preferences across a range of issues, including size of government, attitudes about gun policy and immigration…
Half of LGBT adults (50%) self-identify as liberal, 37% are moderate, and just 12% say they are conservative.
That’s hardly surprising that people vote for the parties that welcome them given the deep hostility of the Republican Party on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues. Until the middle of the 20th century, few black Americans voted for the Democratic party because it was the party of racism. People rarely vote for parties that really dislike them.
The transferability of these American results on partisanship to New Zealand is rather limited because there is no cultural war as there is in the USA currently over same-sex marriages. A same-sex marriage bill passed the New Zealand Parliament in 2013 fairly easily. The Christian based socially conservative parties in New Zealand are pretty tame in their rhetoric and still struggling to get into Parliament.
As such, the centre right parties in New Zealand aren’t seen as particularly hostile to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender population. On the same-sex marriage bill, for example, the National Party split evenly on voting for and against, reflecting its moderation in just about every issue.
People of all sexualities can vote for New Zealand parties on grounds other than the fact of how welcoming they are to who they are. That makes the American results on partisanship and sexuality less relevant to New Zealand
Fewer the mushrooming green party vote in the UK too much at all about the environment. It certainly not the major reason for going green.
Green voters are not radically left-wing on economic issues nor are they primarily driven by environmental concerns. How, therefore, can we explain their decision to vote for a party with a far-left, environmentalist agenda?
One way is to look at who prospective Green voters turned to in previous elections…. Around half voted for the Liberal Democrats in 2010 and around a third voted for the junior coalition partner in both 2005 and 2010. There are a number of ways of interpreting this.
First, Liberal Democrats and Green voters traditionally hold similar socio-demographic profiles. Both are likely to be university educated and to work in professional or managerial jobs.
Second, the Lib Dems were, until the 2010 election, the protest vote of many on the left. Since entering government, they have lost this niche and, subsequently, have seen their poll ratings plummet.
Third, the Greens now have a monopoly on certain policies that they once shared with Nick Clegg’s party – for example, ending university tuition fees.
One of the things I noticed in the 2008 US presidential campaign was everyone was appealing for the middle class vote. Presidential primary and general election debates were about how things were getting harder for the middle-class and the Republican or Democratic candidate who happen to be pitching for votes would stand up for the middle-class better than their competition in the presidential primary or general election at hand.
Another big feature in the 2008 presidential campaign was Joe the plumber. This was the small businessman who asked then candidate Obama at a rope line three days before the final presidential debate about his plans to put up taxes. Obama replied he wanted to spread the wealth around. Obama’s response was
It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success, too… My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody.
If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off… if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody
Andrew Cherlin did the service counting up references to the working class in State of the Union addresses since President Obama was elected.
In his State of the Union addresses, Obama has used the term middle class 28 times. But he has never said “working class” except in 2011, when he described Vice President Biden, who was seated behind him, as “a working-class kid from Scranton.”
This dearth of references to the working class is no surprise in light of Director’s Law and the median voter theorem. Politicians who do not pitch to the American middle class will not win elections unless there is a lot of expressive voting by the educated middle class. In general social surveys of Americans, 44% identify as working class and 44% identify as middle class.
Republicans consistently win voters making $50,000 or more – the U.S. median income. The margin doesn’t vary much: In 2012, Mitt Romney got 53% of this group’s vote; in 2010, Republican House candidates got 55%.
The margin by which the Republicans win income brackets above 50,000 doesn’t vary much if you just look at those earning above $100,000 or those earning between $50,000 and $75,000. These margins only matter in a close election, a very close election.
Democrats consistently win voters making less than the median but the margin varies. Whether the Democrats win these voters earning less than $50,000 by a 10-point or a 20-point margin tells you who won every national election for the past decade.
The Democrats would also do well among the college educated vote. Obama won this over Romney and 2012 by 10 percentage points. This may explain why the Democrats are slightly conflicting: they must win the working class vote as well as the college educated vote to win.
Andrew Cherlin didn’t give many reasons for the disappearance of working class from modern American political discourse, but he showed some insight into expressive politics when he observed that:
Politicians may prefer to call working-class families by the class position they aspire to rather than the one they hold.
I just came across this great blog by Alex White on the three types of voters: utilitarian/instrumental, swinging and expressive. His diagrammatic expressions of them are superb. Most enlightening.
His first diagram above shows three consumer types of engagement with a brand: utilitarian, low involvement and expressive.
Utilitarian decision making is one that is typically high involvement, but are partly price sensitive;
Low involvement buyers do not spend a lot of time researching the features of the product or service, beyond a cursory glance; and
Expressive consumers are ones who make in depth purchases where there is a high engagement. Their decision to purchase precedes research. The research itself serves to rationalise the purchase decision. Often, they will feel a relationship with the brand and identify with the brand’s values.
White then overlaps these brand engagement profiles on voter profiles in the next diagram made up of utilitarian/instrumental, swinging and expressive and then fleshes out these voter types depending on whether they are rusted or swinging.
The rusted-on utilitarian voter votes on a specific issue and are loyal to the party that represents the best fit with that issue. For example, the Greens and forestry, or Labor and education. So long as they view the party as best fitting or addressing their issue, they’ll vote for that party.
A swinging utilitarian voter listens to announcements during campaigns, and tries to make a decision based on what is best for them. These swinging voters are susceptible to the pork barrel promises. Utilitarian voters are sensitive to their expectations being met.
The swinging low engagement voter has no party familiarity, no interest in politics, and do not do any assessment of party policies; they make up their mind based on availability of the party on Election Day (so the presence of people handing out how-to-votes is important). They see no difference between parties; they are completely switchable, so there is no brand loyalty. A low involvement voter is really looking at the absence of negatives.
The rusted on expressive voter votes to convey their values or beliefs, and often strongly identify with the party, or with a party leader. They are partisans who seek out research or information to justify their support for that party. The have a strong emotional connection to the party, or they may be ideologues and identify with a political philosophy rather than the party.
The swinging expressive voter is an ideologue whose voting decision is based on their political ideology. For example, strong environmentalists who support the Greens Party because of their commitment to conservation rather than to the Party itself. The swinging expressive voter may change their vote if they feel a party ceases to represent their value set or beliefs. The expressive voter expectations align with their values or ideology. Their relationship to the party can be very committed, but also very critical. They may tolerate or forgive lapses on policy areas outside the voter’s core values — and they can be passionate advocates.
Alex White has set out a great topology of voters, and how a political party or lobby group should appeal to different types of voters based on their engagement and information needs. White is secretary of UnionsACT, the peak body for 33 unionists Unions in Canberra.
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. - J Robert Oppenheimer.
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments