ELECTORAL BEHAVIOR IN U.S. SENATE ELECTIONS, A SIMULTANEOUS CHOICE MODEL DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Lieutenant Junior Grade Brian Eric Harpuder, USNR, M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2003 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Adviser Professor Dean P. Lacy _________________________ Adviser Professor Herbert F. Weisberg Department of Poltical Science ABSTRACT The turnout decision of citizens has traditionally been analyzed separately from the two-party vote decision of citizens. The presumption has been that citizens decide if they are going to vote, and then decide for which candidate to vote. In the present research, the two decisions are placed into a simultaneous choice framework, which presumes that the decisions of turnout and candidate choice are made jointly, implying that abstention is a vote for none-of-the-above. This research shows the effects of the simultaneous choice model with regard to understudied U.S. Senate elections using data gathered thru the Senate Election Studies from 1988-1992. The research shows that levels of turnout in Senate elections are not equally distributed across the various demographic sectors of society. Efforts by campaigns to target particular constituencies should result in a higher probability of citizens casting a vote for the candidate. With respect to evaluations of the economy and personal finances the research clearly shows support for the angry voter hypothesis. Citizens who are dissatisfied with the state of the national economy, angry voters, are more likely to turnout than those who are satisfied. Their dissatisfaction is expressed toward incumbents because they become more likely to vote for the challenging party. Personal financial evaluations are also shown to have a limited impact on electoral behavior. ii Contrary to some previous research, substantive policy preferences are shown to affect electoral behavior in Senate elections. The findings clearly suggest the campaigns that understand short-term forces can utilize them to produce mobilization. The research shows that use of self-reported media exposure variables can allow for a better understanding of electoral behavior. Citizens who are exposed to candidates via radio or magazines are more likely to vote for the candidate they had read or heard about. The greater their interest and exposure, the more likely it is that a citizen will vote. Overall, the research provides political scientists with an alternative understanding of how electoral decisions are made. Readers will develop an understanding of the factors that influence turnout and mobilization for specific candidates. iii Dedicated to Barb iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are many people whom I wish to thank for helping me to see this project thru to completion. First, I would like to thank my advisers, Jan Box-Steffensmeier, Herb Weisberg, and Dean Lacy for being there with me over the five years it took to complete this project. They all provided invaluable comments and were willing to work with me and my decision to join the Navy, so that I could ultimately complete the project. I am sure they wondered several times if I would ever actually finish this project. They gave very willingly of their time. I could not have asked to work with a better group of people. I would like to also thank LCDR Tom Muldoon who volunteered to proof-read this entire document. He provided me valuable input that improved the content, style, and grammar of the final product. His remarks were pointed and will have the long-term effect of helping me to become a better writer. His often-questioning while we were on deployment of “Are you still working on that thing?” provided a further impetus to complete the project. I would also like to thank the Intelligence Specialists and Photographer’s Mates of USS TARAWA (LHA-1), OZ Division, which deployed with me in 2003 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Their professionalism and dedication to duty ensured that I could use my minimal free time during deployment to work on this project. v I’d like to thank my parents who provided me invaluable assistance, both financial and personal, throughout my time in graduate school. Their willingness to give of themselves ensured that I could stay focused on academic pursuits and not worry about having the funds to pay for school or the necessities of life. Of course, the biggest thanks that I can give goes to the best wife any man could ever wish to have and the person who I love more than anything in the world. Barb provided me the loving support and the occasional kick in the butt that were necessary to have me see this project through to completion. She endured many headaches for me, and it will take me a lifetime to pay her back for her patience. vi VITA July 19, 1974……………………………Born – Los Angeles, California 1992……………………………………..B.A. Political Science University of California, Los Angeles 1999……………………………………..M.A. Political Science The Ohio State University 1997-2000………………………………Graduate Research Associate Center for Survey Research The Ohio State University 2001-present……………………..………Intelligence Officer, United States Navy FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Political Science vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ii DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................... v VITA .................................................................................................................................vii LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................xi CHAPTER 1........................................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Importance of the Research.......................................................................... 4 1.2 Why Senate Elections?........................................................................................ 9 1.3 Methodology ..................................................................................................... 11 1.3.1 The Data.................................................................................................... 11 1.3.2 The Dependent Variable............................................................................ 15 1.3.3 Statistical Tools.........................................................................................18 1.4 The plan of the research .................................................................................... 21 CHAPTER 2...................................................................................................................... 24 LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................................. 24 2.1 The Literature on Turnout................................................................................. 25 2.2 Voting and Demographics/Social Groups......................................................... 30 2.3 Issue Ownership and Issue Voting.................................................................... 32 2.4 The State of the Economy and Personal Finances ............................................ 35 2.5 Information, Knowledge, and the Media .......................................................... 37 2.6 Summary ........................................................................................................... 39 CHAPTER 3...................................................................................................................... 40 DEMOGRAPHICS AND THE SIMULTANEOUS CHOICE MODEL..........................40 3.1 The Variables of Interest................................................................................... 42 3.1.1 Union Membership.................................................................................... 42 3.1.2 Age ............................................................................................................ 44 3.1.3 Gender ....................................................................................................... 45 3.1.4 Race........................................................................................................... 46 3.1.5 Socio-economic Status.............................................................................. 47 3.1.6 Party identification .................................................................................... 50 viii 3.2 Data analysis ..................................................................................................... 51 3.2.1 1988.......................................................................................................... 52 3.2.2 1990.......................................................................................................... 58 3.2.3 1992.......................................................................................................... 62 3.2.4 Aggregated Data....................................................................................... 66 3.3 Summary ..........................................................................................................