Increased Voter Turnout example essay topic

Introduction Throughout our nation's vast political history, there have emerged many candidates for political office that one would consider extreme. These "extreme" candidates influence the perceptions of the constituency, which in turn influences voter turnout. There have been such infamous names as David Duke, George Wallace, , and Elaine Brown, who have provoked large public uproars over their political beliefs such responses translated into increased voter turnout to keep these candidates out of office, or in some cases, to elect them to office. However, the definition of an extreme candidate is based on one person's values, and how he or she sees the particular candidate. For this reason, an extreme political candidate will be defined as a candidate who has at least one platform idea, a personality or appearance that goes against the values of a relatively large sector of constituents. Why is it important to look at how extremist candidates influence voter turnout?

One reason is voter turnout has been declining since the beginning of the century. One would have thought that after the passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, increased efforts at voter registration, and the abolishment of the poll tax and literacy tests, that voter turnout would most certainly go up. However, more and more Americans do not attempt to vote, and have no interest in our government. In an article in The American Prospect, it was stated that the NES found that the percentage of Americans who "believe that they don't have a say in what the government does" has risen from 31 percent in 1952 to 53 percent in 1996 (Sifry 2000).

Are Americans really that apathetic to our government? I believe not. To understand that Americans really do care about our government, one must look at how "extremist" political candidates in national, state and local elections have caused voter turnout in the constituency to increase. The increases in voter turnout that these candidates cause occur in two ways. First the turnout can be caused by a reaction of fear in the constituency, to try and make sure that the candidate does not obtain office. Second, voter turnout can be increased by a reaction in the constituency that is favorable to the extreme candidate's policies Coming to this hypothesis was a tough process.

When reviewing political science data that showed how drastically voter turnout has been going down since the beginning of the twentieth century, one would find it hard to believe that Americans care so little about the way our country is run. Especially after the events of September 11th, much has been written about the increased sense of patriotism in this country. However, does patriotism translate into increased voter turnout on its own, or must there be some stimulus such as a radical candidate? It would seem intelligent to say that Americans would feel most threatened when their sense of liberty seems capable of being taken away by a radical political candidate. This is the logic that this paper will address; that Americans will feel a sense of urgency to vote and make a difference, as a result of a extreme candidate. But some times radical candidates also appeal to a vast electorate, even though some may view their platforms as astronomically crazy.

David Duke is considered an extreme political candidate, just by his association with the, if not his insane political beliefs, but that did not stop him from almost winning a Senate office in Louisiana (Parent and Perry 2003). Increased voter turnout caused by extreme candidates has been a popular topic in political science literature. Salaman and Evera (1973) found that while, the number of blacks registered to vote rose by 1 million persons by 1970, the number of white persons registered to vote rose by 2 million which negated the rise of black registration. This comparison shows that whites would vote not only in reaction to the increase in black candidates, but also to slow or stem the increase in black political power, which could increase the likelihood that an extremist candidate wins.

Additionally, with increased news coverage, some voting was undoubtedly in reaction to events that might be occurring on the other side of the nation. Sam Kernell (1973) backs these findings in saying that "white voter turnout represents a response to the potential and actual black turnout". To give further evidence that whites are increasingly influenced by what the black populace does, Huckfeldt and Kohfeld (1989) believe that "the defection of white democrats is a direct response to the threat that black voters pose to white hegemony". These research findings all show that voter turnout and identification between white and blacks have a strong relationship, in that they both cause each other, but has other literature had something to say about the hypothesis at hand? Salaman and Evera (1973) found that in county elections in the state of Mississippi, some blacks voted for the white candidate rather than for the black candidate (1973). This data says that blacks were effectively increasing turnout by voting for the white candidate because of fear of what would happen to them if they voted for the black candidate (Salaman and Evera 1973).

This evidence is hard to comprehend. It is startling to believe that, blacks would vote for a candidate that, in all likelihood, would make things politically harder for them. Salaman and Evera (1973) show even more evidence against the hypothesis of this paper, in finding that black voter turnout was lower in counties in Mississippi where blacks were most vulnerable to intimidation and violence. The candidates in these counties would seem extreme to blacks because of their anti-civil rights stance, however blacks still did not vote, in fear of the consequences, therefore turnout was lower.

An opposite viewpoint that could be taken is that turnout was lower because black in Mississippi were not allowed to vote, and still treated as slaves. Salaman and Evera (1973) also looked at white hostility and its relationship to black voter turnout using correlations between white hostility in the form of Barry Goldwater and George Wallace in the 1964 election and black voter turnout. They found that, unlike they hypothesized, black voter turnout increased with increase levels of white hostility to black rights. This finding seems to make more sense than their other findings. It seems logical that black voter turnout would increase in reaction to hostility towards black's rights, especially by two high powered politicians. It does not makes sense that Salaman and Evera (1973) would hypothesize that black voter turnout would decrease in reaction to hostility towards blacks rights.

Although the times were dangerous for blacks, one would think that African Americans would do all they could to keep candidates who showed hostility towards blacks out of political office. Therefore, the hypothesis that turnout can increase in reaction to radical candidates, can be tempered by pure human emotions. Extreme political candidates are not exclusively limited to politicians who show hostility towards a group of people. Radicals can also be politicians who align themselves with a radical party, or seem radical by their actions.

Bernie Sanders, a former socialist mayor of Burlington Vermont, won Vermont's one seat in Congress as an independent. Many would consider Sanders radical, just because of his association with the socialist party (Sifry 2000). In the same boat was Jesse Ventura, the current governor of Minnesota. Ventura was long a celebrity wrestler, and then turned his attention to politics.

His tough nose style, socially liberal and anti-establishment views gave many the impression that he was also an extreme candidate. H. Ross Perot, who can be considered an extreme politician because of his limited political background, is "widely believed to have energized many alienated and disgruntled citizens to vote" in the 1992 elections (Smith 1999). Abramson, Aldrich and Rhode (1995) found that on the 1992 ballot, estimates of the turnout increase attributed to H. Ross Perot being on the ticket range from 1.5 points to 2.8 points. However, how did these three politicians win office and increase voter turnout at the same time? Micah Sifry (2000) of The American Prospect believes that it was because both of these candidates tapped into unmarked areas of the electorate. According to Sifry (2000), most candidates focus on the likely voters, while there is an untapped market of registered voters who normally do not go to the polls.

Sifry (2000) makes some good points, and shows us that it does not take a radical candidate putting fear into the constituency to increase turnout. Rather, a radical candidate who hits an untapped market, and appeals to unlikely voters, can increase turnout as well. All of the literature above seems to give a good picture that the hypothesis of this paper is one that is well worthy of being tested. We will now look at relevant data from national state and local elections, and also data about extremist candidates to determine if increased voter turnout can be caused by reaction in the constituency to extremist candidates. Data / Evidence Information on voter turnout for national state and local elections is easily accessible and provides for numerous analyses.

The challenge I had for this paper is finding numerical data on "extremist candidates" to evaluate along with the voter turnout data. Therefore, in looking at the relevant material, the most complete way of evaluating whether a candidate could be considered extreme was by looking at the candidate's policies and what party he or she was affiliated with, which would be the dependant variable. By looking at the information, it is possible to get a clear picture of the tendencies of the candidate and then the reaction in voter turnout (the independent variable) to the candidate's tendencies. There are so many candidates in our country's political history that by virtue of their political beliefs can be considered radical or extreme. It would be impossible to cover all of these candidates in a paper of this length. Therefore, I chose a sample of national, state, and local elections to provide an illustration of how turnout may be affected in all sectors of the political arena.

One interesting political candidate to analyze is George Wallace. Wallace was the famous Governor of Alabama for so many years, who publicly was for and tried to enforce segregation. Wallace's viewpoint on race relations and his stance on keeping segregation, although not out of the norm at the time in Alabama, is enough to consider him an extreme political candidate (Stanley 2003). The interesting part is Wallace's effect on turnout in the Alabama gubernatorial elections in which he ran.

In 1958, the year before Wallace ran for his first term as Governor, the election turnout was 270,048 persons. In 1962, the first year that Wallace ran for Governor, the turnout increased to 303,987 persons, an increase of 33,939 persons. In 1966, the turnout increased radically to 800,448 persons. One reason for this increase could have been the passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. However, knowing the way Wallace ran the state, it is unlikely that African Americans were able to have an impact on the election. The 1970 and 1974 elections continued to have higher turnout with 637,046 persons and 585,955 persons respectively.

Wallace then took a hiatus from state politics and returned as a candidate in 1982 when the turnout was 1,091,353 persons. This data is represented in Chart 1, as the increase in voter turnout in reaction to Wallace as a candidate can be seen. Source: Alabama Secretary of State Home Page (web) Chart 1 shows that every year that Wallace was Governor the turnout was higher than the turnout the year before he ran for governor. In the four elections after 1958, the turnout increase from the 1958 election was averaged at 311,811 persons.

There are two options for why this was caused. One is that the black electorate mobilized itself and had a high turnout in trying to bring down Wallace from his leadership post. However, this option did not happen. In actuality, Wallace got a higher turnout because larger amounts of whites came out to vote in support of his extreme political ideas on how to treat minorities, especially African-Americans (Stanley 2003).

Often, in political elections, increased voter turnout is caused by a minority group coming out in full force to vote to try and prevent a certain candidate from obtaining office. This event took place in the 1990 U.S. Senate election in Louisiana. In this year, David Duke ran for the Senate seat. Duke can be seen as an extremist just because of the sole fact that he was once Grand Dragon of the.

He publicized white supremacy, and had a harsh stance on race relations (Parent and Perry 2003). However, this did not stop Duke from obtaining 60% of the white vote. However, Duke lost because, as Parent and Perry found, J. Bennett Johnston got support and an increase in turnout from an overly energized black electorate (2003). The 4th District in Georgia also provides a excellent example of increased voter turnout because of a reaction in the constituency. In the 4th district, Cynthia McKinney was the incumbent. McKinney made comments on how she did not favor a pro-Israeli stance in Middle Eastern politics.

To many people, this comment may not make McKinney radical. The stance this paper takes is that a politician may be seen as radical just by having a single viewpoint, or personality trait, that goes against the beliefs or morals of a large electorate. McKinney's district compromises a large Jewish population, and the effect of her comments was evident in the 2002 4th District primary. McKinney was challenged by Denise Majette and ended up losing the election with 41.7% of the vote, while Majette garnered 58.3% of the vote. In the 2000 election, the 4th District primary the turnout was 40,629 persons, of which McKinney had 100% of the votes.

However in the 2002 4th district primary, there was a turnout of 117,670 persons. This was a remarkable increase of 77,041 in voters. Obviously, the constituency was angry with McKinney and her comments on Israel may have energized a large portion of the Jewish electorate to go to the polls and vote against McKinney. However, a probable factor in the increase in turnout was that in 2000 Mckinney was unopposed, but she ran against Majette in 2002. It is likely though that turnout still did increase due to McKinney's comments. While on the subject of primaries, the 1996 Republican Presidential primaries provide some data related to the stated hypothesis of this paper.

There was an increase in voting of 1,089,224 persons when compared to the 1992 primaries and the 1996 primaries. In the 1996 primaries, there were candidates such as Alan Keyes and Pat Buchanan, all of whom can be considered extremist candidates for political office. Alan Keyes exposed a different political philosophy for an African American candidate and Pat Buchanan is a very conservative xenophobe with radical ideas that can be perceived as dangerous. This increase in turnout may have been caused by an effort to make sure that Bob Dole won the nomination, or it could have been caused by followers of the radical candidates coming out in large numbers to try and get their man the nomination.

The Independent Party, while often not considered radical, has not garnered the national attention or turnout to be considered a major factor in politics. That all changed in the 1998 Minnesota Gubernatorial election, when out of nowhere, Jesse Ventura won the election. While many of Ventura's policies were not radical, it was his background that was. Ventura had long been known as Jesse "The Body" Ventura, a professional wrestler, who garnered attention for effectively acting out the gruesome beatings of his opponents.

Ventura can be seen as radical because, in a nation where violence on television is such a hot topic, Ventura's pre-political living was made off of acting out the beatings of opponents. The 1994 gubernatorial election turnout was 1,794,618 persons. However, when Ventura ran for Governor in 1998, the turnout in that election was 2,105,377 persons, 310,759 more than the previous election, as can be seen in Chart 2. Source: Minnesota Secretary of State home page. One proposed factor in the rise in turnout was that Ventura mobilized a strong electorate of young people, mostly teenagers, who would have been around the prime viewing age when Ventura was a popular wrestler. Most teenagers, speaking from personal experience, do not give much thought to politics.

When they saw a wrestler who they idolized at a younger age running for Governor, it may have seemed like the cool or anti-establishment way to vote for Governor. Voter turnout data also provides some interesting analyses and viewpoints on the hypothesis of this paper. To analyze this material and look for trends, I reviewed at the national voter turnout rates for the years that extremist candidates ran for office in both national and state elections, as seen in Chart 3. The first interesting analyses take place in 1968.

While voter turnout rates for the U.S. dropped from those of 1964 and Non-South turnout rates dropped from the previous rate in 1964, voter turnout rates in the South rose from 46.4 to 51.8. This is the same year that George Wallace ran for President and carried Arkansas, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. This increase in the turnout rate could have been in large part due to the turnout that the Southern states had for Wallace. The turnout also could have been increased by the passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The turnout rates for 1992 also pose interesting analyses. In 1992, voters got their first taste of Ross Perot.

Having no political experience, and many strange ideas, Perot was seen by much of America as a extreme candidate. However Perot garnered a large portion of the vote and took away many possible votes from George Bush. That same year in 1992, with the introduction of Perot to the U.S., turnout rates rose from 52.2 in 1988 to 56.8 in 1992. They also rose in the south and Non-South regions; from 54.5 to 58.9, and 46.6 to 51.7 respectively. The trend that is being seen is that in years where there is a radical candidate in the running for the presidency, the turnout rates have increased. However, this data can also go against the trend hypothesized above.

In 1996 Ross Perot ran again for the presidency, yet voter turnout rates dropped across the board; from 56.8 to 50.8 nationally, 58.9 to 52.4 in the nonsouth regions and from 51.7 to 47.1 in the south. Maybe the shelf life of an extreme candidate is short as far as attracting the voters is concerned; once they lose one election they are not as feared or generate voters It is important to realize that the turnout data above is for all elections taking place in the presidential election years. Therefore, the trends expressed above are only speculation on the basis of the data. Other problems that should be known is that increases in voter turnout and voter turnout rates may be in large part due to population increases within an area. Still all of the above data does provide some interesting perspectives on voter turnout increases due to reaction by the constituency to extremist candidates. Conclusion All scholars hope that the evidence they provide for an argument is enough proof to sway the reader to believe the argument at hand.

This is what I hope I have done in this manuscript. Most of the evidence reported in this paper does show increases in voter turnout due to an extremist candidate being in the running for the political office. However, there is a deeper meaning behind this data that may give some doubt to my findings. For example, when dealing with the George Wallace data, it is an option to believe that Wallace was not extreme because his beliefs were not out of the mainstream at the time in Alabama.

Therefore the increase in turnout would have been because people supported his political beliefs. Also, the turnout for Wallace went down some years, like from the 1970 election to the 1974 election, when turnout dropped from 637,046 persons to 585,955 persons. It might have been more successful to use date on percentages of voting age populations to make the argument for Wallace. The data on Cynthia McKinney shows a large increase in turnout between the two primaries, however, her primary in 2000 was uncontested, where as, in 2002 she ran against Denise Majette. Just the fact that McKinney was running against an opponent could have increased the turnout, not her comments on policies dealing with Israel. The data relating to Republican presidential primaries and the Governorship of Jesse Ventura, I felt, displayed clear data that radical candidates do have an effect on increasing turnout rates.

The data that this paper reports, all in all, gives a clear picture that there is a relationship between extremist candidates and increased voter turnout. How important or relevant that relationship is, is something this paper has unfortunately not found. Although most scholars would not dare report their weaknesses, I must confess that this paper was not perfect. There are weaknesses, that if corrected could have made a much stronger argument. One of the major weaknesses of this paper was the inability to provide data measuring whether a candidate can be considered an extremist. As many of my preliminary sources noted, there is no formula or numerical data that has been found on whether a candidate is extreme or not.

The problem with this is that determining whether a candidate is extreme is largely based on personal perceptions, and there is no form of data that measures one's personal feelings. Because of this problem, it was nearly impossible to make correlation or causation statements in relation to extremist candidates and increased turnout. Although I do truly believe that extremist candidates do increase turnout, my beliefs will not matter until there is a legitimate formula or numerical data that shows whether a political candidate is extreme. Therefore, although there is personal biographical data on extremist candidates that provide some proof, until the political science community can find a numerical basis in determining extremist candidates, much of the relationships stated in this paper can be considered speculation. Any weakness in this paper is also due to the fact that much of the data reported in this paper presents some confounding factors.

As mentioned above, can one really consider George Wallace an extremist candidate if he was not really out of the mainstream in Alabama? By the definition of an extremist candidate used in this paper, you can consider him to be one; however, it only makes it that much harder of an argument. David Duke can be seen as extremist, yet he got 60% of the white vote in Louisiana, so is he really an extremist. Can Jesse Ventura really be considered extreme based on his past forays into the world of wrestling? By my definition, all of these people are extremist candidates; however, the problem lies in the fact that, as stated earlier, calling a candidate radical or extreme is largely based on each person's beliefs and values. No one person feels the same about every issue, therefore our political socialization and identification influence whether we view a candidate as extreme or not.

As we continue to study electoral politics, their will always be "extremist" political candidates, and hopefully new data based on the backbone of this manuscript will make it easier for political scientists to legitimately call a candidate extreme.

Bibliography

Abramson, Paul R., John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rhode. 1995.
Change and Continuity in the 1992 Elections.
Washington, D.C. : CQ Press. Huckfeldt, R. Robert, and Carol W. Kohfeld. 1989.
Race and the Decline of Class in American Politics. Chicago: University of Illinois Press Kernell, Sam. 1973.
A Re-evaluation of Black Voting in Mississippi". American Political Science Review 67 (December): 1307-1318. Parent, Wayne, and Huey Perry. 2003.
Louisiana: African Americans, Republicans, and Party Competition". In The New Politics of the Old South, ed. Charles S. Bullock And Mark J. Rozell. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 113-131. Salaman, Lester M., and Stephen Van Evera. 1973.
Fear, Apathy, and Discrimination: A Test of Three Explanations of Political Participation". American Political Science Review 67 (December): 1288-1306. Sifry, Micah, "Deny the Obvious Child", The American Prospect, web July 3, 2000.
Sifry, Micah, "Finding The Lost Voters", The American Prospect, web January 31, 2000.
Smith, Mark A. 1999.
Ballot Initiatives, Voter Interest, and Turnout". Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, ' Seattle. Stanley, Harold W. 2003.
Alabama: Republicans Winning The Heart of Dixie". Lanham: Rowman and Littlefeild, 75-93. Stanley, Harold W. and Richard G. Niemi. 2000.
Vital Statistics on American Politics: 1999-2000.