Without going into deep scientific research related to theories of electoral behavior, let's begin to identify various models of electoral behavior. The latter is understood as a description of one or another real type of voter behavior, determined by the most important motives of their voting in each specific case (sometimes the concept of “electorate model” is used instead). Usually, if you adapt to the realities of today's Ukrainian politics, the following models of electoral behavior are distinguished (although, with the further development of scientific research and practice, other models may be “discovered”):
· socio-demographic model;
status (sociological) model;
· socio-psychological model;
· model of party-ideological identification;
The rational choice model
Socio-demographic model. Within the framework of such a model, electoral behavior is explained in terms of the impact on the electoral choice, the behavior of people of various socio-demographic factors, in particular, gender, age, educational, settlement, regional. Of course, in the so-called “pure form”, such a model is rarely found. It is unlikely that the electoral behavior of the population, for example, in Western Ukraine can always be explained only by regional
factors.
However, in some cases, "examples" of such a model of electoral behavior can be identified. Take, for example, the electoral behavior in Ukraine of people of older age groups. Regardless of who they were in their youth, during the years of the existence of the USSR, today they most often vote for the Communist Party. Although the last (2003) election campaign for the State Duma of Russia showed examples of a radical “reworking” of such orientations.
Status (sociological) model, which is sometimes called "class", is also not comprehensive in the sense of the possibility of a clear division of the electorate into groups. Here, as can be seen from the name, we are talking about the choice of a candidate or party by the voter, depending on his belonging to any class, national, religious groups.
In this case (as the well-known American sociologist P. Lazarsfeld wrote), voting is a demonstration of the solidarity of an individual with a certain social group. However, this model does not always “work”: after all, the social and electoral bases of a party or candidate do not always coincide. This means the following: often people representing the poor strata of the population vote for an entrepreneur in elections to the Verkhovna Rada, focusing on momentary interests, and by no means class interests.
This is most often found in transforming, transitional societies, which is today's Ukraine. And yet, certain segments of the electorate with a similar model of electoral behavior can be distinguished with a creative, scientific approach to organizing an election campaign. Thus, the electoral behavior of voters representing national minorities living on the territory of Ukraine (for example, Crimean Tatars or Hungarians and Romanians living in Transcarpathia, especially when it comes to elections to local authorities) is quite predictable.
Socio-psychological model electoral behavior is based on the explanation of the behavior of the voter not on the basis of any class or national factors, but on the basis of beliefs and preferences that are formed already in childhood or in the process of further formation of the individual (under the influence of the family, the immediate environment, etc.). Sometimes also electoral preferences (for example, in the USA people “pass on by inheritance” adherence to the ideals of the Democratic or Republican parties).
If we talk about Ukraine, then here the electoral preferences of voters are often influenced by such factors as the acceptance (or non-acceptance) of democratic principles, market economic relations, political "figures" from the communist past, the spread of new state symbols, rituals, traditions (which are worth, to for example, attempts to introduce the Russian language as the state language) and so on. In other words, within the framework of this model of electoral behavior, people's actions are "guided" by certain views and ideals that have developed under the influence of various factors.
Model of party-ideological identification in fact, it is one of the varieties of the socio-psychological model of electoral behavior described above. But in this case, we are talking about the fact that the voter's electoral behavior is determined by his support for a certain ideology, the values that are "embedded" in the basis of a particular party program, are implemented by a political party in its practical activities.
In a democratic society with a multi-party system, it is precisely this model of electoral behavior that is most acceptable. And in the context of the transition to a proportional system of elections to the Verkhovna Rada in Ukraine in the near future, the tasks of developing this model are especially relevant. Unfortunately, this model does not always “work” in our conditions, by the way, as well as in other states that are at the stage of transformation of their economic and political systems.
Firstly, because democratic traditions are completely absent (in the conditions of the former one-party system, people could not form preferences for social democratic or liberal ideology). Secondly, the problem is in the huge number of political parties in Ukraine (about a hundred). Therefore, it is very difficult for a person, for example, who adheres to social democratic beliefs and values, to choose the political party that appeals to him most in elections: after all, social democratic values are included in the program not only of the SDPU (o), but also of a dozen other parties, including including those in whose name the term "social democracy" is absent.
At the same time, the use of sociological research makes it possible to determine with sufficient clarity, at least, the ideological "affections" of the country's population. Thus, one of the studies of the SOCIOPOLIS Center, conducted in 2003, showed that in reality (the question was not asked “head on”, but the ideological orientation of the respondent was determined by his orientations in the economic, social and political fields), supporters of liberal values are 15 % of the electorate; social democratic - 18%; socialist and communist - 6%. The remaining 61% (as expected) showed a complete "mixing" of various ideals (for example, a person wants to be an owner, but stands for maximum equality between members of society, etc.)*. However, the data already given above on the number of quite clearly defined supporters of liberalism and social democracy can be used by political parties in the process of organizing their election campaigns.
Rational Choice Model in its main outlines it boils down to the following. It is based on the rational choice theory of one of the classics of German sociology M. Weber. The main point that is used in the construction of the corresponding electoral theory is that the rational actions of the subject of political activity are such as long as his relations with other rational individuals are carried out without prejudice to all parties involved.
With regard to politics, the organization of election campaigns, according to one of the founders of the corresponding approach, E. Downs, the theory of rational choice manifests itself as follows: every citizen votes for the party that, in his opinion, will be most useful for him in comparison with others. And in the conditions of developed democratic countries, this model works quite successfully: if a particular government failed to fulfill its “promises” made by representatives of the corresponding party during the elections, voters give preference to another party in the elections.
Unfortunately, in the conditions of Ukraine this model works only partially. In many cases, voters vote again for people (we are talking not only about presidents, but also mayors, people's deputies) who did not fulfill their promises. The upcoming political reform (we mean that this is not a one-time act, but a long process of restructuring the country's political system) is precisely designed to ensure the most rigid relationship between those political forces for which voting is carried out and votes are cast, and their representatives in the government, which just realizes the "advance payments" given by politicians. It can be hoped that under these conditions the rational choice model will “work” much more efficiently.
The Economic Voting Model is a variation of the rational choice model described above. Voters who adhere to this model of electoral behavior, without going into the political and economic justifications for the activities of parties and politicians (including presidents), proceed from the only (but most significant for them) criterion: how they lived during the period when the corresponding administration was in power . If it's good, the mandate of trust is extended. If not, a new administration is elected. Such a model can be especially effective in regional elections, where the functions implemented, for example, by the mayor, include not political problems, but primarily economic ones, and the results of the activity are quite transparent.
Summing up a brief analysis of the problem of models of electoral behavior, it is necessary to make a conclusion about which of these models are leading, characteristic of the majority of the population. In many ways, this certainly depends on the type of political system and the level of development of democracy in society. In Russia and Ukraine as transforming societies, according to scientists, two models are most common: “economic voting” and party (or ideological) identification.
It is almost impossible to clearly determine the proportion of the electorate that "adhere" to one or another voting model, in general, for the entire country and for a long time. It depends on the type of election; the region where they take place; social and national composition of the population and many other
factors.
It is the analysis of information about which models of electoral behavior and how much are in demand in a particular situation of elections, the organization of an election campaign, and becomes the first step in the conditions of the scientific organization of elections. The essence of this "step" is quite simple. When preparing an election campaign long before election day (usually when conducting a basic sociological survey in a district or country, aimed mainly at preparing a strategy for an election campaign), an attempt is made to determine the segments of the electorate (this can be represented graphically - in the form of a circle with highlighted segments), whose behavior is based on various electoral models.
It is clear that these segments will be unequal. Sociological research will show exactly this (here, both polls and focus groups can be used, during which the main motives for voting by different groups of the electorate will be clarified). As practice shows, the segments reflecting the specifics of economic and ideological-party voting will be more serious.
The “swamp” segment will also be significant. This is usually the name of an undecided electorate for a variety of reasons. Not the potential one who does not indicate his preferences during pre-election polls. And that part of the voters who will either not come to the polls at all, or will prefer voting "against all." Let us repeat once again that the situation in different regions, at different times, with different types of elections will
ambiguous.
The scientific approach to the organization of the election campaign in this regard will consist, firstly, as noted, in determining a clear picture of the "electoral field". Secondly, in clarifying those methods and technologies that need to be prepared for further use during elections for voters who have different models of electoral behavior.
Very important in the work of psychological and political consulting, not only during the election campaign, but also in the period between elections, is a clear understanding of why the voter prefers this or that political movement, makes the choice of this or that political leader. This is necessary both to predict the mood and behavior of the voter, and to determine the state of mass or public consciousness, as well as the influence of the latter on the state of individual consciousness of each member of society. Regular measurements and monitoring of public opinion with the help of special psychological and political techniques makes it possible to track the direction and dynamics of mass consciousness, to anticipate the dangers of undesirable changes and creates an opportunity to correct mass behavior.
Based on the relevance of the problem, for a comprehensive study of the behavior of voters when deciding who to vote for, we created a basic psychological model of electoral behavior (PMEP). The methods developed on its basis for studying electoral expectations and preferences, predicting election results, as well as forming and adjusting the image of a candidate were tested in the elections to the State Duma in 1999, to the Legislative Assembly of the Leningrad Region.
PMEP consists of the following links (Fig. 1):
- Sources of information.
- The stage of perception and analysis of information and the formation of a holistic image of the candidate based on the information received, previous experience, value orientations and motives, social expectations and attitudes, stereotypes and archetypes. Not the last role in the perception of information is played by such mental processes as thinking, memory, emotions, attention, ideas.
Rice. 1. Psychological model of electoral behavior
The sources of information include: the candidate, his party organization, the headquarters of the election campaign, the election commission, other competing candidates, the media, various organizations, citizens. Information can be of the following types: oral, written and visual.
Information can be positive - campaigning "For", coming both directly from the candidate himself, his supporters, employees of the campaign headquarters, and indirectly (rumors), and negative - campaigning "against", coming both from competitors and from the candidate himself and his surroundings. There can be no neutral information in this case. Therefore, one of the main tasks of a candidate's election campaign after determining its strategic direction is to minimize the possibility of dissemination of negative information about the candidate by the campaign headquarters. In other words, ensuring the internal psychological and campaign security of the election campaign.
The main stage of our model concerns directly the consciousness of the voter (recipient), the main actor, on which "to be or not to be" depends.
The formation of the image of a political leader is a complex and multifaceted process, which includes, to one degree or another, all the mental processes and individual characteristics of the voter, as well as many socio-psychological aspects of his life.
The whole process of image formation can be divided into four stages: the formation of a perceptual image, the formation of an analytical image, the formation of an ideal image, the formation of a holistic image.
A perceptual image is a reflection in the mind of the voter through the perception of information about the candidate, including information about his professional activities and personal life, as well as about his appearance, behavior, i.e. the totality of information that comes from external sources. At the same time, some of the information may not concern a specific political leader, but be correlated with him according to the associative principle. When forming a perceptual image, an important role is played by the conditions of perception - psychological and physical factors.
In order for information to be perceived by a person, it is necessary to draw his attention to it. We know that attention is by nature selective. We pay attention only to what can have some value for us, i.e. satisfy our needs, or attract with its unusualness and novelty.
Any information, like its source, is perceived with a certain emotional coloring, which is associated with the function of memory and the process of thinking, as well as with previous experience, social and attitudes and value orientations.
At the stage of formation of an analytical image in the mind of a person, the perceptual image is subjected to logical analysis, as a result of which an idea of the essence of a political leader appears. We can say that a person in his mind completes the missing meaningful characteristics of the personality of a political leader, hidden from him.
The formed perceptual and analytical images are compared with the ideal image of a political leader, which exists in the minds of every person.
The ideal image is an average idea of the qualities of the desired leader, which is formed on the basis of previous experience, under the influence of ideas about the personal and active characteristics of the leader. This image reflects the surrounding social attitudes and value orientations, archetypes and stereotypes, human needs and related expectations.
In the course of comparing perceptual and analytical images with the ideal, a holistic image of a political leader is formed in the mind of the voter.
A holistic image is a generalized idea of a candidate, formed on the basis of a perceptual and analytical image, taking into account the ideal image, previous experience, value orientations, social attitudes, needs and social expectations, and the indirect influence of socio-economic and living conditions in which the voter is located.
The choice of a political leader is the stage of deciding who to vote for based on a compromise between the desire to find a leader whose image would mirror the ideal, and the desire to avoid a leader whose image is most contrary to the ideal idea, taking into account electoral expectations.
After describing the psychological model of electoral behavior itself, let us consider in more detail all its psychological components and the features of their functioning.
The world around us is full of various information. To perceive and understand this information, a person needs to pay attention to it. Therefore, attracting the attention of the voter during the election campaign is a very significant problem, this is the first stage in the process of perceiving the content of the election campaign of a political leader, party. Attention, if you resort to a figurative comparison, is "the door to the human mind." Opening this door and not letting it close is a necessary condition for any election campaign, any election technology. Most often, attention is defined as the selective focus of human consciousness on certain objects and phenomena. There are two main types of attention: voluntary and involuntary.
Involuntary attention is attention caused by external causes: certain features of objects that affect a person at the moment. They can be the intensity of irritation, the novelty and unusualness of the object, its dynamism. Involuntary attention is attracted by such properties of objects or phenomena that a person perceives unconsciously. Involuntary attention, if it is not supported, quickly disappears; if it is maintained, it turns into voluntary. Arbitrary attention arises as a result of conscious efforts of a person aimed at the best performance of a particular activity. It is characterized by purposefulness, organization, increased stability. It is practically impossible to talk about the constancy of attention to something, we all know that our attention has a “sliding” effect. Therefore, we can talk about its fluctuation. And holding attention requires some volitional effort.
With long-term concentration of attention, fatigue occurs. Therefore, a person can maintain stable attention only for a certain time, which is different for different people. Fluctuations in attention will be the stronger, the more monotonous and monotonous the content (or form) of information is. According to S.L. Rubinshtein, the most important condition for the stability of attention is the possibility of revealing new sides and connections, new interesting aspects in the subject to which attention is paid.
The totality of stimuli perceived by a person (recipient) is reflected in his mind in the form of a series of observations. For example, a person sees the speaker, hears the words they say, or reads these words. Understanding words heard or seen requires a kind of decoding them. That is, a person must know the meaning of words and sentences in order to understand the content being transmitted. From a psychological point of view, stimulus decoding is based on the processes of perception.
Perception is a holistic reflection of objects, situations and events that occurs with the direct impact of physical stimuli on the receptor surfaces of the sense organs.
A. Adler believed that the perception of the outside world by a person is never photographically accurate, since an indelible trace of the individual characteristics and qualities of a given person and the uniqueness of a person is always superimposed on it and is due to what and how he perceives. Perception is always more than just a physical phenomenon; it is the psychological function from which we can draw the most far-reaching conclusions concerning the inner world of the individual.
Perception is associated with thinking, memory, attention, is directed by motivation and has a certain affective-emotional coloring. It is necessary to distinguish between perception, adequate to reality, and illusions. With the processes of thinking, perception also brings together the possibility of transforming the image in order to bring it to a form suitable for making a decision.
It is necessary to note a very important property of perception - apperception. Apperception is usually interpreted as the influence of a person's previous experience, his knowledge, interests, needs on perception. Distinguish stable apperception - the dependence of perception on the stable characteristics of the individual, his worldview, beliefs, education, etc. and temporary apperception, in which situationally arising mental states (emotions, expectations, attitudes, etc.) affect.
Perception is not a passive copying of an instant impact, but a living, creative process of cognition. And interpersonal perception plays a huge role in electoral processes. The perception of a person by a person is a special form of thinking of a person about another person, which focuses and generalizes all the signs of a perceived person.
An important feature of interpersonal perception is not so much the perception of a person's qualities as the perception of him in relationships with other people. A person's reflection of reality always turns out to be mediated by the features that characterize this person as a person, as a subject of labor, cognition and communication. This regularity extends to the process of cognition of a person by a person. Acting as an object of knowledge and action, a person is reflected in the minds of people and determines their behavior, only "refracting" through their inner world, the prevailing system of thoughts and relationships.
The most important of the studied mechanisms of interpersonal perception are the following:
- identification - understanding and interpreting another person by identifying oneself with him;
- socio-psychological reflection - understanding the other by thinking for him;
- empathy understanding another person through emotional sympathy with his experiences;
- stereotyping - perception and evaluation of another by extending to him the characteristics of any social group, etc.
Attempts are being made to isolate more universal mechanisms of interpersonal perception that provide stabilization, categorization, selection, limitation, etc. of information, which is a necessary condition for any perceptual process. The content of information (stimulus) after perception and decoding (understanding) with the inherent feature of previous experience (attitudes) passes through a kind of “filter” of thought processes and emotional states and is fixed in memory.
Let us consider the influence of attitudes related to past experience and the impact of the social and political environment on the perception and formation of the candidate's image. According to J. Clapper, the formed attitudes tend to self-reinforce. A person accepts, first of all, the information that is consistent with his previously learned attitudes. Therefore, any information about someone more often acts as a factor that strengthens attitudes than as a factor that changes them. What is the installation and its influence on the perception and formation of the image of the candidate? An attitude is a relatively stable organization of knowledge, feelings and motives, formed under the influence of upbringing and experience, causing a person’s corresponding attitude to the ideological, political and social phenomenon of the reality surrounding him, expressed in action (in the broad sense of the word):
- stereotypes are incorrect generalizations - too broad, exaggerated or simplistic;
- stereotypes are beliefs that are common to a certain group of people, usually associated with ideas about the socio-psychological and / or anthropological characteristics of other social groups;
- stereotypes, being a system of beliefs and attitudes adopted in advance, are not formed through social experience;
- stereotypes are conveyed through language; they are relatively stable and difficult to change.
Based on these characteristics, the stereotype can be attributed to a specific group of attitudes (along with prejudice). They significantly affect the perception of information by those people who possess them. Some researchers, considering the genesis of stereotypes, argue that the constant trend of thinking is the compilation of specific images of abstract reality. It is sometimes called reification. The emergence of stereotypes is an obligatory and characteristic of all people, no matter what society they belong to, a natural tendency to “simplified thinking”.
Thinking as a process of cognition, under the influence of a stream of stimuli carrying information from the surrounding world, evaluates the values of the information received, with their appropriate processing and comparison with the existing system of views. Thinking performs an ordering and systematizing function. Mental activity in the process of perceiving the image of a political leader can be assimilative and exploratory (analytical).
Assimilation activity is the inclusion of a perceived image in an already existing circle of ideas. Assimilation contains two processes: selection of received data and processing (transformation) of them. When selecting the information received, information is highlighted that, subjectively, for some reason, is recognized as useful and important. They are interpreted accordingly. During the selection of information, the subject pays a significant role to accompanying factors (facial expressions, gestures, intonations, posture of the speaker, if information is transmitted through oral speech).
The exploratory activity of thinking consists in the desire to select from the information received exactly what is necessary to confirm the already existing idea.
Emotional states are a factor that plays an important role in perception and decision making. Information received from the outside, along with mental processing in the mind of a person, is accompanied by a certain emotional state, i.e. takes on an emotional dimension. These states greatly influence the perception of various messages and the formation of ideas, attitudes towards a political leader. After going through all the previous processes, the information supplied is fixed by the recipient with a memory function.
Memory is a complex mental function of a person. From the world around us, we perceive stimuli of various physical nature. Since a person receives different information, he has different types of memory. Most of the information is transmitted in the form of signs perceived by sight and hearing, so the main types of memory are visual and auditory memory. There are also other, less vital types of memory (gustatory, tactile, motor, etc.). Observation and memorization of any object or phenomenon is a combination of the effects of various stimuli.
Archetypes. The collective unconscious at its core affects us from birth to death. The concept was first introduced TO. Jung. He considered the collective unconscious as the second mental system of a person, which has a collective, universal, impersonal nature i: inherent in each individual. The content of the collective unconscious, in his opinion, is represented by archetypes. “The collective unconscious does not develop individually, but is inherited. It consists of pre-existing forms - archetypes, which only become conscious in a secondary way and which give a certain form to the contents of the psyche”; “There is good reason to suppose that the archetypes are unconscious images of the instincts themselves. In other words, they are models of instinctive behavior. K. Jung believed that there are exactly as many archetypes as there are typical life situations.
Needs. A need is a state of a certain subject, interpreted as a need, a need for something. Personal needs reflect the part of social needs known and accepted by the individual, and these latter are an integrated expression of part of the personal needs of society, a social group.
Motives. The motive is “a “dynamic” moment of the direction of action on certain target states, which, regardless of their specificity, always contain a valuable moment and which the subject strives to achieve, no matter what various means and ways lead to this” .
The top in the hierarchy of motives can be called value orientations.
value orientations. The system of value orientations determines the content side of the personality's orientation and forms the basis of its relationship to the surrounding world, to other people, to itself, the basis of the worldview and the core of the motivation for life activity, the basis of the life concept and "philosophy of life". M. Rokeach distinguishes two classes of values:
- terminal - beliefs that some ultimate goal of individual existence is worth striving for;
- instrumental - beliefs that some mode of action or personality trait is preferable in any situation.
This division corresponds to the traditional division into values-goals and values-means.
Expectations (expectation). Expectation is a system of expectations, requirements regarding the norms of an individual's performance of social roles. Expectations are a kind of social sanctions that streamline the system of relationships and interactions in a group. Unlike official regulations, job descriptions and other regulations of behavior in the group, expectations are informal and not always conscious. The two main aspects of expectation are the right to expect others to behave in accordance with their role position, and the obligation to behave in accordance with the expectations of other people. There are prescriptive expectations, which determine the proper nature of the performance of a role by an individual, and predictive expectations, which determine the probabilistic nature of the performance of this role, taking into account the individual characteristics of the subject and the specific situation.
We have examined in detail all the psychological components of PMEP and their functional features. Political elections are just one of the small periods in the life of society, but when passions boil, a lot of money is spent, and then for many direct participants in these events, a period of disappointment, resentment and serious psychological trauma begins. Everyone who in one way or another concerned the elections knows how hard it can be for a losing candidate to go through. He does not understand why the voters did not choose him. It seems that everything was there - the money, the team, and the consultants. Of course, everyone cannot win, only one wins. Different reasons underlie victories and defeats. But when both administrative and financial resources were involved, and the elections were still lost, what was the reason? It seems to us that candidates ignore the scientific and applied knowledge of political psychology.
Practically no research is conducted between elections (due to lack of funding). Yes, and during elections, sociological surveys are often used to manipulate the voter, and not to understand the processes that occur in the minds of the population. Therefore, in some regions of Russia, laws on elections to local levels of government are already introducing articles on the use of the results of sociological research in the media (a good example is the law on the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly of the Leningrad Region). But the very methods of sociological surveys during the election period usually include only measurements of the ratings of politicians, local problems and electoral activity. This is connected both with the time limit and with the ideas and capabilities of the sociologists themselves. Therefore, we would like our political leaders to pay more attention to the social sciences during the inter-election battles, this will bring them significant benefits in the next elections.
LITERATURE
- Adler A. Understand the nature of man. - St. Petersburg: Humanitarian Agency "Academic Project", 1997. P.45
- Andreeva V.G. Social Psychology. M., 1988.
- Bodalev A.A Personality and communication. Moscow: Pedagogy, 1983.
- Wojtasik L. Psychology of political propaganda. M.: Progress, 1981. P.26.
- Psychology. Dictionary / Ed. A.V. Petrovsky, M.G. Yaroshevsky. Moscow: Politizdat, 1990.
- Sukhodolsky G.V. Introduction to the Mathematical and Psychological Theory of Activity. Publishing House of St. Petersburg University, 1998
- Philosophical Dictionary / Ed. I.T. Frolova. Moscow: Politizdat, 1991.
- Hekhauzen H. Motivation and activity. - M .: "Pedagogy", 1986. P.33.
- Jung K.G. Analytical psychology. M.: Martis, 1997. P.73.
- Allport G.W. Attitudes // Handbook of Social Psychology/ Ed. bu C. Murchinson. New York, 1939.
- Lippman W. Public Opinion. New York, 1922.
- Madrzycki R. Psychologiczne pravidlowosci ksztaltowania sie postaw. Warzawa, 1970.
The use of the model makes it possible to more accurately predict electoral behavior and, as a result, the results of elections.
In the literature, the term "model of electoral behavior" is used in four, somewhat different, aspects:
Ø model as an approach (“what is the most important thing in a campaign”, for example, a PR approach, most fully presented in the book by S. Fire “Strategy and Tactics of the Election Struggle”);
Ø model as a classification, typology (“what are the groups of voters”);
Ø model as a set of external factors (“what affects the electorate”);
Ø model as a combination of internal factors (“based on what motives and attitudes the voter makes a decision”).
In our opinion, the first type of models from the above list is not such. They also include, for example, the “negative approach” singled out by O.P. Kudinov. In our opinion, in this case it is more appropriate to talk about the negative strategy or tactics of the campaign, but not about the model of the electorate.
We consider the most revealing idea of the model of electoral behavior as a set of parameters according to which voters are divided into relatively homogeneous groups (and not all parameters are equally important for determining the specifics of a particular group), that is, a classification model. At the same time, classification is only the basis of the model, and its essence lies in determining the weight of factors that affect the behavior of voters of a certain group to varying degrees. Thus, the second aspect of the model is decision-making mechanisms (in other words, a set of factors) that differ from one group of voters to another.
We managed to find the most complete lists of electorate models in the Russian-language literature in the works of O.P. Kudinov “Fundamentals of organizing and conducting election campaigns in the regions of Russia” and E. Malkin, E. Suchkov “Fundamentals of electoral technologies”.
After analyzing the above and a number of other models, we have compiled the most complete list of models in our understanding of the word.
Address.
It implies the absence of a clear stable division of the electorate into groups according to socio-economic or demographic parameters. This model is “situational”, that is, it is different in each election campaign (in the sense of dividing the electorate into different groups). In the US, however, there are certain traditions, such as farmers voting Republican. A feature of the model is a multi-level classification, instead of a strict single-level typology.
Dominant stereotype.
Voters are divided into three groups: "personally oriented", "ideologically oriented" and "mobile". In the first two groups there are subgroups that tend to vote for a certain positive image of the candidate - “as before”, “as now” and “as in the West” (“ideological” - the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the “Party of Power”, SPS); "the strongest", "the most honest", "miracle worker", etc. (Lebed/Zhirinovsky, Yavlinsky, Luzhkov/S. Federov). The model was most carefully developed by E. Malkin and E. Suchkov.
Identification.
If the choice was made by the voter not entirely by chance, and he does not care who he voted for and who won (and such people rarely come to the polls), then there is a process of identification with the leader and with his other supporters. At the same time, support groups (meaning those who voted or are about to vote for a given candidate, and not members of his headquarters) are formed not necessarily because of the correspondence between the candidate’s program and the voters’ ideas about the proper state structure, but, for example, because of good looks. However, even in the case of such seemingly formal signs of association, one can speak of a certain degree of generality, the integrity of the support group. After all, the emergence of similar emotions in response to the same features of the leader (appearance, voice, etc.) tells us about the similarity of the psychological characteristics of members of the support group. If the formation of the support group still occurs due to the content characteristics of the leader (that is, the support of the program), then the homogeneity becomes even greater. At the same time, it should be noted that the similarity of values, attitudes of members of such a group may be greater than the similarity of the values of group members and the true values of the leader himself.
This model assumes the desire of voters to associate with the candidate. At the same time, the motives can be both conscious (“he is ours, from Petrovka”), and unconscious (resemblance to a close relative).
Ideological.
It comes from the division on the left-right scale.
Example: mathematical models in the USA.
Wrong: "right center", Zhirinovsky, confused concepts.
It is easy to see that since the beginning of the 1990s, the significance of the model for the Russian electoral process has significantly decreased (for example, see the statement from the work of 1995: “At present, the politicization of almost all segments of the population, the possibility of choosing one’s ideological and party allegiance leads to the fact that the factor of party affiliation continues to play a significant role, both in electoral behavior and in the general worldview of people”).
Image.
It is closest to the model of the dominant stereotype (image is an integral part of the latter). It is also similar to the trait profile model, but more psychological, since it describes the image of a politician as a whole and allows for the existence of a number of stereotypical images (rather than a single trait profile).
Class.
There is such a typology of the ways of development of Ukrainian society, which is most indicative of this model: national-patriotic, social-communist, social-democratic, liberal-bourgeois, administrative-bourgeois, national-bourgeois. Obviously, the model is based on the Marxist approach. Close to socio-economic, but more abstract.
Administrative.
Also called the "carrot and stick" model. Implies that the voter votes in the hope of receiving an encouragement or avoiding punishment. This means, first of all, at work, but the effect can also be delayed - for example, “if you don’t vote for me, the electricity will be turned off in a month.” In reality, the significance of the administrative resource should be estimated at about 8-12% of the votes, although this figure can fluctuate significantly from region to region. Note that with increased turnout, its significance becomes less.
Problematic.
The campaign strategy is built on the basis of a list of the most relevant topics for the region/district. This model has a number of significant drawbacks, for example, the fact that the relevance of problems is a partially formed parameter of public consciousness, that the sets of problems that concern different respondents differ significantly, and it is impossible to focus on averaged data.
Software.
It implies that voters make their choice based on the program. The model does not take into account the similarity and vagueness of the programs of modern Russian political parties, the lack of interest among voters in these programs (abstract, in their opinion) and the lack of a sufficient level of competence among the vast majority of voters in order to understand a serious program. The practice of election campaigns in Russia shows that the program has become important in recent years, but rather as a symbol: “we have a program!”
Damn profile.
It can be called the "ideal candidate model". It proceeds from the fact that if you combine those features, for each of which someone is ready to vote, then you get a candidate with an image for which everyone will vote. The applicability of this model is limited by the effect of mismatch between the ideal and the real. According to some reports, 60% prefer blondes with a height of 190 centimeters and proportions of 90-60-90. But these same men choose their wives according to other criteria.
Socio-economic.
Similar to the previous one. It proceeds from the fact that voters vote based on the goal of satisfying their interests (primarily economic). In accordance with them, voters are divided into groups, campaigning takes place among their "groups".
Traditional.
Voters vote "out of habit", that is, they always vote for the same parties. It is not very applicable to Russian reality due to the absence of both the habit of voting in general (except for some pensioners) and stable existing parties. It is easy to understand that this model does not explain the behavior of all voters. Accordingly, this is another model of the "second level", that is, it explains only one factor (and mainly explains the voting for the "old" parties - Yabloko and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation).
It implies that most closely unites a common cause or action. In accordance with this, voters vote for a candidate with whom they have something similar in common.
Clientelelist.
By clientelism, following V.L. Rimsky, we will understand “a social phenomenon characterized by the formation of relations of dominance, domination and subordination, dependence and independence on the principle of patron-client”.
In our opinion, the clientele model can have great explanatory power, especially in Russia. However, for its practical application, it should be refined, since, in our opinion, this model includes 4 components at once:
- changing attitudes (attitudes are formed from experience, experience is that a specific leader is in power);
- submission to the opinion of the majority (which chose the incumbent);
- manifestation of archetypes;
- administrative model (fears, fear due to threats or confidence that only those who have power can fulfill promises).
An example is Robert Levydnoa and Gary Steiner's "hierarchy of impact" model. The degree of impact from the point of view of the authors is different stages of acquaintance with the product.
sociological model
The model implies that the decisive factors for predicting electoral behavior are socio-demographic characteristics. This model is closest to the socio-economic one, but it is more superficial. It does not explicitly define why voters vote for a particular alternative. It seems to us that the most plausible explanation of the effectiveness of this model is from the point of view of the theory of socialization. It can be assumed that age, gender and place of work determine the characteristics of socialization (see, for example, the description of the specifics of socialization processes in different generations in the work of E.B. Shestopal).
The traditional mechanism of electoral behavior from the point of view of this model is reflected in the classical "genetic" model of Lipset-Rokkan, according to which the choice of citizens is influenced by a combination of five circumstances: social status, income level, place of residence, level of education and religious affiliation.
Nollan model of political freedoms
Initially, Nollan's model of political freedoms, developed in Russia under the guidance of prof. A.I. Yuriev, does not concentrate on the electoral process. The essence of the model is the possibility of classifying political subjects on the basis of a system of political beliefs, understood as a set of ideas about the optimal development of freedoms (in the classic Nollan model - political and economic, at the moment, researchers have proposed a third scale - personal freedoms). As a source of such a classification, texts or a set of actions are taken, evaluated by the degree of expression of freedoms. The classical version of the analysis is based on identifying the key problems of the state and assessing the views of the politician/party on the scales of freedoms for each of the key problems.
We consider it correct to include this model in the list of models of electoral behavior, since the conformity of the politician's/party's and voter's beliefs is classically considered one of the main factors of electoral choice.
Model of types of electoral installations
This model is synthetic in nature.
The essence of the model is to use all the information about the opinions and beliefs of respondents obtained in quantitative socio-psychological and sociological studies as the basis for classifying respondents according to the totality of their attitudes, manifested in response to research questions.
The initial assumption is that the system of attitudes that determines the electoral choice manifests itself explicitly and implicitly in the answers to questions. A striking example of this is the questionnaires of respondents who tend to give negative answers to all questions of the questionnaire, thus expressing their, on the whole, extremely negative position in relation to the elections. Obviously, this is a group with certain psychological characteristics, and they should not be confused with voters who are more positive about the elections, who will also not go to the polls.
At the time of publication of this work, research has not yet been completed on the detailed development of a model that identifies groups of voters by the type of system of political attitudes.
The problem of studying and working out electoral behavior is associated with the democratization of society, the introduction of legal foundations, and the possibility of participation of the general population in the formation of the state apparatus.
The technologies of electoral research were worked out in detail within the framework of Western sociological and political schools and repeatedly proved their effectiveness in stable political systems. In this situation, elections of various levels acquire a special role, the result of which depends on the further development of the country or the course of reforms. Elections inherently attract the general population, as well as certain political groups, politicians, this suggests that electoral behavior studies all participants in the political field. The course of reforms and the development of the country depend on the result of the elections. That is why elections, political activity, electoral behavior are of great importance and attract the attention of both the general population and individual political groups and politicians. People want to know what awaits them in the future, who will manage them and how. Politicians are interested in who among them can apply and with what degree of success for this or that political role. The desire to understand what factors, groups influence the electorate, the ability to predict and manage the electoral behavior of various segments of the population, made this problem relevant and studied by a number of sciences, each of which presented its own model for studying electoral behavior.
The main sciences that study electoral behavior are political science and sociology, but the study of this problem is widely represented in a number of other sciences. It should be understood that at the moment there is no single model for studying the electoral behavior of citizens, which would work in all countries with the same share of data representativeness. This is due to the general characteristics of the country, politics and citizens, it follows that in each individual case it is necessary to select the appropriate model. Which will work in narrow conditions, taking into account all the features and factors, in this case, it is possible to obtain accurate data that can be useful and representative. Each model focuses on the study of a set of factors by which it can interpret the electoral behavior of citizens. The higher the influence of the studied factors of the chosen model, the higher its applicability. Characteristic in the study of electoral behavior is the complex use of various methods of collecting information in order to improve the reliability and quality of information.
One of the first sociological models investigating electoral behavior is “electoral geography”, the creator is A. Siegfried. A. Siegfried tried to derive all social factors from geographical ones, thus he tried to explain the formation of political views that affect electoral behavior. A. Siegfried sees the main prerequisites for social and political behavior in the characteristics of the region where a person lives. As a result, Siegfried's work serves as a starting point for conducting research aimed at identifying the objective reasons for the formation of electoral behavior. However, this model was not “ideal”; it was predominantly applied in nature.
Conventionally, the “second” sociological model can be called the model of P. Lazarsfeld, who was the first to use panel polls to elucidate the mechanism of electoral behavior. This approach is called "sociological". Lazarsfeld analyzed politics and its impact on voters through the social determinants of their behavior (link). Using a panel survey, Lazarsfeld analyzed individual data based on public opinion.
Currently, supporters of the sociological model point out that the political choice of a person is determined by his belonging to large social groups, and social and sociocultural factors also have their influence. Social groups set the prism (worldview, interests, values and needs) of a person. As a result, a person's choice is isolated. People support the interests closest to them in the field of politics, and want their greatest realization for their social group.
The most striking traditional example of a political science model that studies electoral behavior is the genetic model of Lipset and Rokkan. Comes to the idea that the choice of citizens depends on 5 circumstances (link). The emphasis is on studying the features of human socialization. Based on this idea, the main socio-demographic characteristics are studied, for example, such as the level of education, position in society, income, place of residence, religious views, and others. R. Inglehart finalized this model by adding an ideological factor.
Another model that can be used to study electoral behavior is rational choice theory. This theory allows the basic hypotheses of human behavior regardless of the scope of its activity. According to this theory, the goals of the individual are seen as predetermined and dependent on the individual himself (reference). Based on this, we can say that the main emphasis, in contrast to the sociological model, is that it studies the individual, outside of a large social group. The vote given by a citizen is seen as a rational choice made as a result of the pursuit of personal interests. Voting in this case is the process of achieving certain goals of a citizen. Rational choice theory is a universal model that is used by both sociology and political science and a number of other sciences.
The socio-psychological model of studying electoral behavior also considers not a large social group, but a party with which a person identifies himself. Citizens during the election period have a large amount of political information and limited time to analyze all events. In the current situation, the definition of a person to any party is a filter through which the correspondence of interests, preferences and orientations is determined. The higher the person's identification with the party, the more obvious the principle of choice. The process of identifying a person with a certain party begins in the family, where early socialization takes place and loyal party membership is formed. In this model, the influence of social factors is not denied, but it is assumed that they are mediated by the citizen's party identification. At the same time, the fact that a person must be a member of a party is not assumed, the emphasis is rather on the views and preferences that are similar in the ideas of a particular party. It should be noted that this model works only in a two-party system; in the case of a multi-party state system, the use of this model is of little use.
Based on the foregoing, it can be stated that the study of electoral behavior is an urgent problem in modern society, which has its own distinctive features and characteristics associated with the course of various political processes that are studied by various models of electoral behavior. At the same time, there is no single model of electoral behavior. As a result, the complex application of various methods inherent in various models is possible, which helps to obtain accurate, objective, and representative data regarding electoral behavior.
| 2 | | | | |
One of the most important areas of research by sociologists is the electoral behavior of various groups of society. The sociology of elections and electoral behavior is one of the areas of sociological knowledge most in demand by society and the authorities. Sociology of elections is a branch of sociology that studies a complex of problems related to the behavior of the population in election campaigns, including the study of the electoral orientations of social communities and individual citizens, the analysis of factors affecting participation in elections and voting, the motives for participation or non-participation in them, the study of the structure the electorate, the peculiarities of their perception of pre-election events, parties and personalities of candidates, assessment of the effectiveness of the media and the levels of their impact on the positions of voters, forecasting the results of elections, etc.
Currently, there are several theories of electoral behavior that explain the nature of electoral choice by certain factors.
Each theory builds its model of electoral behavior based on any one factor of electoral choice, giving other factors a secondary importance.
Let us dwell in more detail on the three main models: sociological, socio-psychological, rational choice models.
The sociological approach to modeling electoral behavior is one of the classics in science; for a long period of time it has been decisive in works devoted to elections.
This approach to the analysis of electoral behavior is based on a study conducted by a group of American scientists at Columbia University under the leadership of P. Lazarsfeld in 1944, in which the main attention was paid to individual voters.
Its authors studied the behavior of voters in conditions of political competition, taking into account the factor of social stratification. The most important element of political sociology is methodological individualism, according to which individual citizens and their political choices constitute the primary objects of study. However, an individual actor is not considered in isolation, but in the context of the restrictions and opportunities conditioned by his environment that influence the models of social interactions and the implementation of political choice [Political Science: New Directions 1999: 247].
The main discovery of scientists at Columbia University was that social characteristics are important not only because they directly and inevitably translate into a set of interests and their attendant preferences, but also because they determine the place of the individual in the social structure and thus affect the openness of political information. In what social conditions a person lives, such are his political views. Social characteristics determine political preferences.
Obviously, this statement corresponds to the principle of social determinism. But it is not straightforward. Politics exists relatively independently of social and economic conditions. It would be a serious mistake to assume that political preferences are a direct consequence of political interest, determined by individual characteristics.
Thus, representatives of the sociological trend emphasize the decisive importance of the group basis of electoral choice, explaining the group features of voting by the group's social position in society and the influence of the group's position on its ties with political parties.
One of the authoritative directions in the study of electoral behavior within the framework of the sociological approach is the theory of splits by S. Lipset and St. Rokkana. It was started, by universal recognition, with the monograph "Party Systems and Voter Preferences", published under the editorship of M. Lipset and St. Rokkan and, in particular, their own material in it: "Split Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Preferences: An Introduction".
In this paper, the authors focus on the origin of the system of divisions that dominated the democracies of Western Europe at that time, note the conditions necessary for the development of a stable system of divisions and oppositions, and analyze the reaction of citizens to the resulting party systems. They also initiate one of the most fruitful theoretical discussions in the social sciences in the second half of the twentieth century.
Cleavages are long-term structural conflicts leading to opposing positions that may (or may not) be represented by parties. A split is a division based on some criterion of individuals, groups or organizations between which conflict can occur. The notion of split is thus not identical with the notion of conflict: splits can lead to conflict, but split is not necessarily accompanied by conflict.
The concept of "split" contains components of two types: structural and essential. There are three structural components: divisive (differentiation that exists between social groups), conflict (awareness of differentiation) and organizational (organization in defense of group identity and goals).
Essentially, social and political conflicts are distinguished. This category can be used to analyze the impact of social stratification on institutions and behaviors, or the impact of political institutions on social structures and change.
Social cleavages are usually defined in terms of social attitudes and behavior patterns and are seen as reflecting traditional divisions of social stratification. Political splits are usually defined in terms of political attitudes and patterns of behavior.
Social splits. When Lipset and Rokkan attempted to identify the critical lines of division that have historically structured the party systems of Western democracies, they identified four major social divisions and carefully traced their emergence and development (Lipset and Rokkan 2004).
The Reformation and Counter-Reformation and various national revolutions served as critical junctions in the development of the division between center and periphery and between state and church. They generated most of the conflicts taken up by parties representing ethnically, linguistically and religiously diverse populations in the peripheries of the newly emerging nation-states.
In a similar way, Lipset and Rokkan showed that the industrial revolution gave rise to two further forms of social division: village versus town, and workers versus property owners.
Political splits For other authors, political attitudes and behaviors are key factors in revealing the existence of splits. Rather, these scholars focus on relatively stable patterns of political polarization, in which some groups support certain policies or parties while others support opposing policies or parties. These groups may or may not be social groups; what is essential is that there are divisions which have been given political form.
Socio-psychological approach to modeling electoral behavior. It is believed that the American Voter project gave impetus to the study of this topic in the early 1960s. The so-called "Michigan paradigm" of E. Campbell and J. Belknap, who led a group of American researchers, successfully attempted to create a new approach to studying and predicting voter behavior due to the inability of the "sociological model" of electoral behavior to predict the outcome of elections in Western Europe and the United States. This concept proceeds from the premise that there is a stable mutual influence of the institutions of political representation and the political orientation of citizens.
Citizens receive a fairly large amount of information about political events, but at the same time they have very limited time opportunities for their analysis. However, most voters have a strong pattern of sorting, evaluating, and interpreting new information. At the same time, only a few citizens have stable, holistic, consistent ideological views and use them to analyze political processes. The majority evaluates the changing political situation through the prism of loyalty to a particular party. Party identification creates a kind of "sieve" through which the individual tries to sift through the ongoing political events and find out what best suits his hidden preferences and orientations. The more stable the identification with the party, the more obvious the principle of this choice.
The psychological nature of party identification required an emphasis on socio-psychological problems, which became a hallmark of the Michigan School.
Within the framework of the socio-psychological approach, the object with which voters identify is no longer a large group, but a party, and the inclination to support a particular party is developed in the individual in the process of early socialization.
The main agent in the formation of political identification is the family, where the process of early socialization takes place and party loyalty is formed.
The influence of social parameters on the political preferences of citizens is not denied, but it is mediated by the factor of party identification.
Party identification in the scientific literature is most often interpreted as a stable attitude towards a particular political party, which directly affects the electoral behavior of an individual.
Party identification does not imply formal affiliation with a party. Rather, it indicates that the individual has a certain party preference.
Empirical studies carried out in different periods indicate that this model has a relative suitability, however, in the conditions of a bi-party system and a binary political split. The situation is much more complicated in those countries where a multi-party system and many significant political splits (left-right, religious-secular, Christian-Muslim) have developed.
Rational-instrumental approach to modeling electoral behavior. The origins of the development of this theory of electoral behavior is the classic work of E. Downes "The Economic Theory of Democracy". This work is based on the statement that "every citizen votes for the party that, in his opinion, will provide him with more benefits than any other." It should be noted that E. Daune himself believed that ideological considerations play a leading role in the corresponding assessments. At the same time, such an interpretation of the calculation of voters ran counter to the data of empirical studies, which did not indicate a high level of ideological bias of the electorate.
M. Fiorina reviewed the shortcomings of the theory of E. Downes, which, as we mentioned above, consisted in the fact that voters' assessments were based on ideological considerations, and practice showed that voters were not ideologically biased. M. Fiorina, developing the ideas of Downes, developed the theory of "retrospective voting". He writes: “Usually citizens have only one kind of comparatively 'hard' knowledge: they know how they lived under a given administration. They do not need to know in detail the foreign or economic policy of the current administration in order to judge the results of this policy.
Thus, the author concludes that there is a fairly strong correlation between the state of the economy and election results, which does not necessarily mean that people understand economics more than politics. Initially, when voting, the voter proceeds from the fact that it is the government that is responsible for the state of the economy, and if life is good, vote for the current government (the current president), if it is bad, for the opposition.
X. Himmelveit, developing the theory of the voter's rational choice, proposed another instrumental voting model - the "prospective voting" model, depending on a set of specific problems and proposals of political forces to resolve them.
In this context, it seems important to single out two axes of voting: retrospective - perspective and egocentric - sociotropic. Retrospective voting - when the voter, mostly looking back, assesses the past performance of the government/candidate/party; prospective - when the voter votes in anticipation of an improvement that is "promised" by the government/candidate/party in the near future, in case the government/candidate/party is re-elected. Egocentric voting - when the voter's choice is based on an assessment of their own economic situation; sociotropic - when the voter's choice is based on an assessment of the economic situation of the country and the functioning of the economy as a whole.
Thus, the behavior of voters is not only rational, but also instrumental in the sense that the individual minimizes his own efforts, for example, in collecting the information necessary for making a decision.
Electoral Behavior in Advanced Democracies
The above concepts of electoral behavior have been repeatedly tested on significant arrays of empirical data from Western European countries and the United States.
Sociological studies based on the theory of splits have demonstrated the importance of basic social differences influencing the behavior of voters.
Empirical analysis has shown that class is one of the most powerful reasons for political division in the 50s and 60s. XX century, which determined the stability of electoral behavior in Europe in the 1950s and 1960s. However, the social changes of the following decades led to the emergence of cleavages that are no longer based on classes or even social groups, but rather on values or ideologies. The crisis of industrial society, experienced by developed democracies in the 1970s, led to an increase in social and geographical mobility, the complication of the social structure of society, and the emergence of new middle strata.
For example, the size of the class voting index in Sweden, Great Britain and Australia has decreased by almost half in recent decades, and by more than two-thirds in Germany. The trend towards a significant decrease is observed in the United States in the elections to Congress.
Therefore, since the mid-1980s 20th century the translation of social divisions into political oppositions has become much weaker. This gave R. Ingelhart reason to assert that the structure of splits underlying the political processes in Western countries has undergone profound changes since the Second World War, as there was a shift in the values of individuals from material to post-material.
R. Ingelhart's research on value orientations and changing values in Western society provides a good basis for explaining why the influence of the sociotropic voting model is growing and the influence of the egocentric model is decreasing. The post-materialists succeeded in posing a new set of problems and creating a political dimension that crossed the traditional left-right axis. As a result, powerful new political organizations have emerged (environmentalists, peace activists, women's movements, and so on) that receive support in elections in different social groups. For middle-class individuals who have been attracted to political agendas, such as environmentalists, class solidarity naturally becomes less important.
For these reasons, the influence of party identification on electoral behavior is also reduced. Political parties in Western Europe are in fierce competition with new social movements for voter support. The voter as a consumer has the opportunity to choose on the political market from the variety of goods offered exactly the one that best suits his individual needs. Therefore, traditional party identification is weakening. This trend is especially evident in countries with a bi-party system. For example, in the United States in the 1960s the number of firm supporters of political parties was 35-37%, and in the 80s. decreased to 23-25%. In the UK, the number of firm supporters in the 60s. exceeded the level of 40%, and the beginning of the 80s. decreased by about half.
Based on the data obtained, most researchers conclude that in developed democracies, the majority of voters adhere to a sociotropic and retrospective model of economic voting.
QUESTIONS FOR THE EXAM
QUESTIONS FOR THE EXAM
1. Object and subject of the discipline "Study of socio-economic and political processes".
