Voters face two distinct decisions at election time: if they are going to vote; and, if so, for which party or candidate?  For some people the answer to each is easy and may be automatic with little thought needed, while for others each question may take considerable thought and reflection. 

To vote or not

For over half of the population the decision on whether or not to vote is automatic and not given much thought because they have a norm of either always voting or never voting.  Others will think about whether or not to vote and may reach a decision during the campaign or on election day.  Others will intend to vote but not get around to it on the day. Internal and external factors effect both those with norms and those who make a decision. 

Three prominent models that seek to explain participation levels concentrate upon self-belief, social behaviour, and the political environment respectively, namely: efficacy, social capital, habit formed by competitiveness.

Efficacy

Efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in their own ability to know what is going on, be heard and make a difference politically.  It is state of mind, a habit and a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Those with high efficacy think politics is interested, belief that it is easy to understand and that the election makes a difference to what happens.  Such people are very likely to vote.  At the other end of the spectrum, people with low efficacy are not interested in politics, believe that they cannot understand how to participate and that the election makes no difference anyway.  Such people are unlikely to vote.  People with low efficacy are likely to express it with phrases such as: ‘politics is boring and has nothing to do with me’, ‘they don’t listen to us’, ‘I don’t want to look stupid’ , ‘politics isn’t cool’, ‘it’s for adults’.  Many people fall between these two extremes, with high efficacy on one or two aspects and low efficacy on the others.  Those with two aspects of high efficacy are more likely to vote than those with only one.  Efficacy is most effectively built through experience of participation and having a voice.

Social Capital

Social Capital relates participation to how connected people are with others and the impact that this has on their interest in politics.  Robert Putnam, who proposed the idea, argues that when people have high social capital they feel part of society and interested in what happens to everyone and so politics matters to them and they are likely to vote.  Social capital is built through interaction with others, through a range of group activity such as sports, social groups, unions, churches and service organisations.  The crucial component is that through such activities people meet and get to know other with different backgrounds and life circumstances and so gain an appreciation of how laws and political decision affect other people.  The idea is encapsulated in the title of Putnam’s book on social capital, Bowling Alone: people in the USA used to belong to ten-pin bowling clubs with workmates or neighbours but now most people go bowling with their family.  Social capital is in decline in western democracies as people focus on self and family, with less involvement in group activity.

Voting is a habit

Voting or not voting is a formed habit.  Those who vote at their first eligible election are much more likely to vote in other elections than those who do not vote first time.  Mark Franklin created this model after analysis of turnout in 22 countries since 1945.  Early experience of elections sets a pattern and view about the usefulness of voting that impacts on the decision of whether or not to vote at later elections.  Consistently the competitiveness of the election was the factor that had the biggest impact on whether or not first time voters voted and in prompting non-voters to vote.  So when it looks as if two or more of the parties will receive about the same vote then more people will vote but when all commentators and opinion polls suggest a sure win for one side then people are less likely to vote.  New Zealand was not in the original study but analysis by Jack Vowles shows that it does apply here.

Choosing between options

At election time, voters have a choice between the parties on offer rather than being able to indicate their exact place on the political spectrum.  For some voters, there is no party that exactly reflects their own views and so they have to make a choice of "best fit".

There are three main theories put forward as to how people choose their party: through party identification, according to sociological theory, or from personal interest.

Party identification

This explains the voting choice of many but its strength is declining.  Party identification refers to the fact that most people vote for the same party at every (or most) elections and will describe themselves as a supporter of that party.  Currently just over half of New Zealand voters say they identify with a party, but this has declined since 1975 when over 70% claimed that they identified with a party.

The question, then, is how and why do people acquire a party identification?  Habitually supporting one party makes it easier to decide how to vote and what to think on new issues, because there is an assumption that you agree with your party which has done the work of considering the issue in detail.  Many people identify with the same party as do their parents and friends, suggesting that people are socialised into broad positions on the political spectrum.  One explanation for the decline in party identification is social mobility; as people now meet a wider range of people there are competing and conflicting socialisation pressures.

Sociological theory

Class-based politics are a prime example of sociological explanations of how people vote, for instance, ‘manual workers vote Labour and managers or farmers vote National’.  This theory is strongly related to the idea of cleavages as an explanation for party formation in particular countries.  Sociological theory suggests that particular groups in society are best served by particular parties, many of which were created by advocacy groups.  For instance, many labour or socialist parties were created by the trade union movement and are assumed to implement policies that benefit working class and poorer people.  Likewise, many conservative parties were created by industrialist groups to implement policies that benefit those who own property and industry.  Sociological theory can also explain historic links between the Ratana Church and Labour, as church leaders believed that Labour policies benefited church members and addressed their concerns.

Again, socialisation is the common explanation for how these links are formed and how voters make these associations between the group they are part of and a particular party.  On the other hand, some people make aspirational associations, so some manual workers will vote for the "party of the bosses", for instance, in part through a desire to "rise" from a manual to a managerial life.

Personal interest

Personal interests, and individual calculation of what each party would deliver for them, can also explain voter choice.  The voter assesses the options at each election and makes a choice based on current policy promises.  Such a choice has less of a connection to ideology, as the voter focuses on a party’s specific policies rather than its philosophical basis.  Some voters will make an assessment based on a few policy issues that particularly concern them.  Some voters will make a detailed assessment of a few of the parties on offer, for instance those that they believe can form a government, or those whose leaders they admire, or those focused on a particular segment of the population or place on the political spectrum.

Those with low efficacy, particularly those who think politics is hard to understand, are often daunted by the idea of having to assess the policies of all parties in order to cast a vote.  Understanding ideology and the relative positions of parties and one's self against the political spectrum makes the decision much easier and acquiring party identification easier still.