MODELS OF ELECTORAL PARTICIPATION WITHIN THE SOCIOLOGICAL SCHOOL OF THOUGHT
Abstract
The article analyzes three models of electoral participation within the framework of sociological theory. The findings provide insight into the peculiarities and motives of electoral behavior from the perspective of sociopolitical variables. As a result, a better understanding of voter motivation allows for effective measures to be taken to predict and improve the social environment. The author focuses on the model of expected equality/fairness or relative deprivation; the model of social capital and the model of civic voluntarism. The main idea of the first electoral model is that individuals who experience an acute gap between what is expected and what is real suffer from a sense of deprivation that stimulates them to protest by participating in elections. The second model provides important statistically significant variables, namely, trust in others, perception of fellow citizens as fair, and mobilization activity. The author proves that interpersonal trust and social media mobilization have a positive impact on the likelihood of voting and turnout. Among the variables of the third electoral model, the author identifies belonging to a certain social class, party mobilization, volunteer activity, political efficiency, interest in the election campaign, and the strength of party affiliation. The empirical evidence shows that citizens who have a higher social status, are in contact with political parties, are active in volunteer organizations, and are politically active, interested, and have strong party identification are more likely to go to the polls. These results suggest that people's resources, the degree of mobilization through personal contacts, and psychological involvement in the political process help explain their propensity to vote. In contrast, age, ethnicity, and education level do not have a significant effect. The author notes that inflexibility, difficulties with operationalization and application of sociological models, as well as difficulties in taking into account short- and medium-term changes make it impossible to explain the causes of absenteeism based solely on sociological resources.
References
2. Campbell A., Converse P., Miller W., Stokes D. The American Voter. The University of Chicago Press, 1980. 576 p.
3. Coase R.H. The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics. 1960. Vol. 3. P. 1–44.
4. Fiorina M. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. Yale University Press, 1981. 249 p.
5. Lijphart A. Unequal participation: democracy’s unresolved dilemma. American Political Science Review.
1997. Vol. 91(1). P. 1–14.
6. Niemi R.G., Whitten G., Franklin M.N. Constituency characteristics, individual characteristics, and tactical voting in the
1987 British general election. British Journal of Political Science. 1992. Vol. 22. P. 229–254.
7. Shachar R., Nalebuff B. Follow the leader: theory and evidence on political participation. The American Economic Review.
1999. Vol. 89(3). P. 525–547. URL: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.89.3.525
8. Uhlaner C., Cain B., Kiewiet D. Political participation of ethnic minorities in the 1980s. Political Behavior.
1989. Vol. 11. P. 195–231.
9. Verba S., Nie N. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. The University of Chicago Press, 1987. 452 p.
