Given the dealignment of the electorate in many democracies, more emphasis has been placed upon the economy as a key determinant of voting behaviour. Labour lost in 2010 in the UK as did the PSOE in Spain, largely due to a failing economy after the “credit crunch” induced recession in those countries. In Australia however the incumbent Labor government was ousted from office despite an economy that boasts 22 consecutive years of economic growth and a forecast of 2.6% growth for this year. Bill Clinton campaigned on the theme of “It’s the economy stupid” in 1992 to defeat the then President G.H. Bush, yet it would seem too narrow a focus on a single factor cannot explain the outcome of elections.

1. Mike Simpson, Bradford Grammar School
“It is not the
economy
stupid!”
Given the dealignment of the electorate
in many democracies, more emphasis
has been placed upon the economy as
a key determinant of voting behaviour.
Labour lost in 2010 in the UK as did the
PSOE in Spain, largely due to a failing
economy after the “credit crunch” induced
recession in those countries. In Australia
however the incumbent Labor
government was ousted from office
despite an economy that boasts 22
consecutive years of economic growth
and a forecast of 2.6% growth for this
year. Bill Clinton campaigned on the
theme of “It’s the economy stupid” in
1992 to defeat the then President G.H.
Bush, yet it would seem too narrow a
focus on a single factor cannot explain
the outcome of elections.
Personality seems to have been a consideration. The new Prime
Minister, Tony Abbot, underwent a makeover to his public image.
Previously there were allegations of sexism and homophobia but he
presented a more statesman like image during a well-run campaign.
Party unity seems to have been the most critical factor. The Labor
party were internally divided due to bitter feuding between former
leader, Julia Gillard, and Kevin Rudd. This not only seemed to
overshadow their reasonable record in office, but caused concerns
about their ability to govern in the future. This is in part is linked to
the economy, illustrating how these short term factors overlap. There
are concerns that boom times are over but, linking to party unity
again, the judgment that the electorate seemed to reach was that
the divided Labor party was simply not fit to govern.
Given developments in the in the UK with recent spats between
Miliband and the unions and talk of leadership challenges to
Cameron, perhaps party unity could play a significant part in the
2015 General Election, just as did in Australia.
The Rational Choice model would suggest that a combination of
short to medium term factors can explain the main influences upon
voting behaviour. For the sake of brevity and as useful revision
mnemonic, these might be reduced to the “4Ps” of:
1 Past performance
2 Policies
3 Personality
4 Party unity
Past performance relates to retrospective voting where the track
record of the government is considered. It is here that economic
performance comes into play. As stated above, the solid performance
of the Australian economy should not have adversely affected
support for the Labor party. Chinese demand for raw materials has
meant that Australia was the only major developed economy to
avoid recession.
Polices relates to prospective voting where the voters consider the
future course of the government. Here too there seemed to be little
advantage for the eventual winners Liberal National coalition. There
were proposals to repeal a carbon tax, for cuts in 12,000 public
sector jobs and a tougher stance on immigration but in comparison
to the previous Labor government, they were not ideologically poles
apart. Consequently, this factor would not seem to present a clear
rationale for the victory of the Liberals.
Questions
How does the rational choice model explain the
outcome of recent elections in the UK?
What role did long term factors such as race, religion
and region play in the 2012 presidential election?
Can voting behaviour be regarded as a valid science?