masterwordsmith-unplugged

Sociologists and media practitioners have tried to understanding voter behavior. Various researchers have tried to come up with their own models to explain what makes the voter tick (pun intended).


The Micro-sociological Model

As far back as the early 1940s, Paul F. Lazarsfeld and his colleagues tried to understand how voters develop their voter inclinations intentions by conducting an intensive study of Erie County, Ohio, during the 1940 presidential election. They interviewed a representative sample up to seven times over the course of the campaign with regard to:

• vote intention
• evaluation of the candidates
• assessment of the major political issues. 

They did this to determine how individual voters developed their political attitudes over time and the impact of the campaign on this process. You can read more HERE.

The team discovered that socio-structural variables have more influence than socioeconomic status and religious affiliation. They authors concluded that the political preferences of their respondents were largely socially determined.

For many voters, party choice was fixed months before the election, and new information was used selectively to reinforce rather than challenge or update prior opinions.

Based on their findings, does it mean that in reality, the average voter is far from the ideal of responsible democratic citizens who diligently educated themselves about the various parties and candidates before going to the ballot box? Food for thought.

Of course Lazarsfeld and his team came up with their own conclusions.  THIS LINK says:

The authors argued implicitly that socio-structural variables could be viewed as indicators of membership in a mostly homogeneous social environment of friends, family, neighbors, and colleagues with similar political views. This web of interactions is then capable of reinforcing wavering individual opinions through social pressure. In these circumstances, so-called opinion leaders play an important role by intensively informing themselves about political events through the media and then passing their observations on to less interested or less educated citizens. To describe this relationship Lazarsfeld et al. formed their famous “two-step flow” hypothesis of political communication.


Emphasis on the immediate social environment disposed some researchers to observe an interesting phenomenon: If a voter's social environment is not homogeneous and he/she belongs to multiple social groups with incompatible political norms, conflicting behavioral expectations (cross pressures) should develop. To explain non-voting or party-switching, two phenomena that electoral researchers have always been preoccupied with, Lazarsfeld et al were forced to rely above all on cross pressures in the immediate social environment.

Another model that has been postulated to explain voter behavior is the Socio-Psychological Model. You can read about it at THIS LINK.

It was ten years after The People's Choice that Angus Campbell and his team at the Survey Research Center published their first major election study based on a random sample covering the entire United States, as opposed to prior regionally limited inquiries.

Campbell et al initially explained voting behavior exclusively through psychological variables, specifically:

• the evaluation of candidates
• their positions on the major political issues
• their party identification/the degree of attachment to a political party. 

You can read more about his research HERE but library membership is needed to view the article.

There is also the Rational Voter Model. The theory of rational voting goes back to Anthony Downs's pioneering study, An Economic Theory of Democracy. Downs applied neo-classical economics to voting behavior and provided the impetus for a new and fruitful research agenda in political science.

Downs assumed that politicians and voters behave as rational actors in a market, in which political power (in the form of votes) is exchanged for the realization of political objectives. According to his research,  the rationality of actors is therefore understood in a formal sense that has nothing to do with reasonableness in the commonly accepted sense, but rather is solely related to the decision between alternative actions.

In this way, rational actors have stable and yet active preferences allowing them to select from a set of alternatives for their benefits. In simple terms, it means that a rational actor who likes a government formed by Party A to one formed by Party B, and prefers Party B to Party C, must therefore prefer Party A to Party C given a choice between the two.

Then, the rational voter will choose the party that stands nearest to his or her ideal point on that continuum (the point where their benefits are maximized). At the same time, parties will formulate their political programs with an eye toward maximizing their vote total. As the preferences of actors are seen as stable, changes in behavior are only explained through structural changes, such as through the entry of a Party D. You can read more HERE and HERE.

To be honest, one cannot really understand voters. Some could have been voting the same party for decades and would continue to do so because of loyalty.

Those of us who are connected may understand issues at hand but not those who are elderly or who do not have net connection. As such, parties concerned must really make an effort to understand voters, know their needs, go down to grass root levels to meet those needs and to effect change.

Change does not come easily. Check THIS LINK to know more about the Satir Change Model.

Where our voters are concerned, I seriously believe that BN is taking a more strategic and powerful approach in the campaign strategies by seeking professional assistance. I can see how the PM and his DPM were very much united in the way they moved in to campaign for the Sarawak elections when they sensed that things were a bit shaky. The fact that Putrajaya was closed for a week for this purpose shows their commitment. On the other hand, we can also lament the resources used for this purpose.

Conversely, Pakatan Rakyat does not have the type of resources that BN has so we can see how they are at a distinct disadvantage. Their campaign speeches use the same proven methods of lambasting the other side by highlighting concerns. While this is good, I opine that the Opposition must really improve their methods of campaigning. More persuasive methods and professional media planners or volunteers must be engaged for their campaigns.

Attendance at ceramahs is no indicator of voter allegiance to any party. Looking at the sea of faces at a ceramah can give us a feel good feeling but it is the votes that count at the end of the day! And how will they make sure that voters really vote for them?

To do well in the next election, it is absolutely vital that Pakatan revamps their media strategy and overhaul their public relations plan. They may have good intentions but do they understand voters? Or are they intent on just achieving their own agenda?

There has to be a reason why despite the negative reporting by certain websites, BN still did so well.

And Pakatan Rakyat MUST find out why and learn from them if they want to do well in the next elections. They cannot afford to just blame it on the usual controversial issues. No. That is just running away from reality or treating the symptoms but they are not dealing with the inherent problem - do they understand the voters? Can they show how they will meet their needs and help the constituency?

All parties concerned must really work hard for the next GE which I am sure, is imminent.  They have to make an effort to understand voters and touch the core of their beings. If not, they must be ready to suffer loses and perish whatever dreams they have,

To me, there is no point in making oratorical speeches and listening to the roar of crowd approval.

It is what counts on the polling day and how they will really make the voter tick for them.

How far does Pakatan Rakyat understand their voters? That is a question that must be answered ASAP and then an action plan must be executed to achieve their dreams.