|
Where Have All The Undecided Voters Gone?
April 2004
A consistent theme in our polling over the past year is the small number of apparently undecided voters in the electorate. Even today, more than six months before the presidential election, our own surveys as well as other public polls, show the number of undecided voters in the single digit range.
Have voters come to judgment earlier than normal this year? Is there something about President Bush, Senator Kerry, or Ralph Nader that compels Americans to decide earlier in 2004 compared to previous elections? Not likely.
It appears the low number of undecided voters is part of a broader political trend in America , wrapped up in the increasing level of partisan polarization in this country.
As the first chart indicates, the number of undecided voters has been generally lower over the past three election cycles compared to the 1980s, based on Gallup surveys.
A more likely explanation is that Americans are self-identifying more with one party or the other, leaving the percentage of "independents" declining. Common sense suggests that partisan identifiers are most likely to be either in the Bush or Kerry camp, while independents are more likely to remain undecided longer. Hence if partisan identification is increasing and the number of independents decreasing, we would also expect the number of independents to slump.
After reaching a peak in the mid-1970s, the number of independents has been on a gradual secular decline. This trend appears to explain, at least in part, the disappearance of the undecided voters over the past decade.
Additionally, it is important to note that while those identifying themselves as uncertain or undecided in election is most definitely shrinking, the number (and percentage) of people who are choosing not to participate at all in elections is growing. We don't think that is accidental. As politics becomes louder and less relevant (apparently) to people, it more and more becomes the province of the interested, the decided, the activist and less and less the province of the normal citizen. This is seen even in television programming. There are a small number of cable stations devoted to political news (CSPAN, CNN, Fox ) that comprise a self-contained, narrowcasting ghetto. The junkies go there for their news; everyone else avoids them like the plague. These stations' programming has little relevance to the average American. The O'Reilly Factor is the highest rated news program on cable. On a good night it has about 4 million viewers [CHECK]. The last numbers on SpongeBob Squarepants suggested it averages about 15-17 million viewers [CHECK].
It is also be careful with respect to the language. Some on the left try very diligently to sell the notion that this disinterest is due to a rise in partisan rhetoric. That seems unlikely. The political process is no more nor less partisan than it ever was. Does anyone honestly think any politician could get away with describing a group as the party of "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion" nowadays? This is an important point, in part because the left is always trying to attach the "partisan" label to the agenda of the right, and adhere the "bipartisan" label to their favorites. How many times have Republicans been scolded for not being sufficiently bipartisan?
At any rate, this shrinking pool of disinterested or undecided or whatever people can be viewed in two ways. One could argue that this is healthy and a natural consequence of both American sentiment toward government (we have rarely looked toward government for answers to anything) and the American experience since Teddy Roosevelt (the Progressive movement has not lived up to all expectations). One could also credible argue that it is not very healthy to have 1/3 of the country making decisions while 2/3 stands around watching American Idol.
The import of it all for political types is obvious. First, they need to worry less. They spend a lot of time worrying about things that the average American never hears, and if it does hear about them, mostly doesn't care. Second, they need to stop thinking so much about packaging solutions because people may not be (and are probably not) looking for solutions from DC. They need to think more about which problems they should be talking about. Bill Clinton had it about right - he understood that it most cases people wanted empathy and sympathy and someone to listen. They don't necessarily want answers and solutions.
|
