![]() suggests that judging a president’s or his party’s performance in office presents a perfect opportunity for the voter to play “rational God of vengeance or reward.” Issues in the 2020 presidential election In his classic book “The Responsible Electorate,” the late Harvard University political scientist V.O. If all is going poorly, they look for another option. If all is going well, a person votes to retain the incumbent or the candidate of the incumbent party. Since these retrospective evaluations are based in the voters’ experienced reality, it’s rather easy for voters to take them into account when deciding which candidate to vote for in an election. Voters are often unbending and unwilling to compromise – it is all or nothing for them.Īt the polls, voters consider how a candidate rates on both types of issues. Voters’ stances on these issues are typically rooted in deep-seated religious, cultural and ideological convictions. Examples include abortion, gay and lesbian rights, social and racial justice, the death penalty and gun control. Second, there are divisive issues for which Americans have very different preferences. Related issues include the desire for low inflation, high employment, low crime, care for the elderly, a strong national defense and high-quality education. ![]() The consideration then is not whether to seek prosperity or not, but the voters’ evaluation of which presidential candidate or party is most likely to deliver on campaign promises to ensure it. It is normal for voters to want their community to prosper. There are two kinds of issues that are central to understanding how Americans vote.įirst, there are issues on which all Americans typically share the same preference, like the state of the economy. Therefore, partisanship usually refers to a voter’s evaluation of the parties, rather than their identification with a single party or a specific candidate. In multi-party democracies with parliamentary governments, elections are competitions between parties rather than specific candidates. ![]() They attribute this to the use of a parliamentary versus a presidential form of democracy. Studies conducted by political scientist Martin Rosema at the University of Twente in the Netherlands and other scholars have examined why European countries are more likely to vote in this style. As political scientist Anthony Downs states, “each citizen casts his vote for the party he believes will provide him with more benefits than any other.” Prospective votersīy contrast, most Europeans tend to vote the opposite way from Americans, taking a “prospective” perspective.Įuropean voters, like shoppers, tend to evaluate political parties in terms of which one is most likely to give them the most future prosperity. For example, Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016 can be attributed to dissatisfaction with Barack Obama’s policies. Bush in 1988.Īnother twist to this scenario is when the political party of a term-limited president is punished by voters for the incumbent’s unsuccessful performance. Voters might turn an incumbent out of office if they think that he didn’t accomplish enough during his term – like Jimmy Carter in 1980 and George H.W. That helps to explain why Reagan was followed by the election of fellow Republican George H.W. Think Bill Clinton’s reelection in 1996 or Ronald Reagan’s win in 1984.Īnother possibility is that the political party of a term-limited president is rewarded by voters for successfully delivering on a popular agenda. Sometimes an election results in the incumbent president’s reelection, because he was seen as successful in getting most of his agenda adopted. Several recent presidential elections serve as clear examples of retrospective voting.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |