Chapter 1. Why Do People Participate?

"Political participation" is a broad term. Generally, "political participation refers to those activities by private citizens that are more or less directly aimed at influencing the selection of government personnel and/or the actions they take" (Verba and Nie, 1972:2). Political participation, then, includes the act of voting; indeed some call voting the threshold act of political participation, in that most people who participate at all vote. Political participation, however, includes much more than voting. Participation includes donating money to or working on political campaigns, writing or e-mailing your representative, engaging in political protests, and even putting a political bumper sticker on your car.

When we discuss political participation, we tend to talk about aggregate rates of political participation: What percentage of the voting- age population actually turned out to vote in the last election? How much money did individuals and groups give to political candidates last year? How many U.S. citizens are registered members of a political party?

Yet each of these figures is the end result of millions of individual choices, and one of the great puzzles in political science is determining how those choices are made. The question is simple: Why do some people choose to participate in the political process while others do not? The answer, however, has proven complicated and elusive.

This chapter will discuss two efforts to understand the individual decision to participate. Specifically, we will consider the rational choice model of participation and the civic voluntarism model of participation.

Rational Choice Explanations of Participation

Rational choice theories of human behavior posit that individuals have preferences about how they would like the world to look, and they act to achieve the best possible outcome. Their ability to achieve the best possible outcome is constrained by the behavior of others and by constraints on both resources and information.

For example, imagine that I prefer low taxes rather than high taxes. I will likely vote for a presidential candidate who favors low taxes rather than for a presidential candidate who favors high taxes. That would be a "rational" decision, because it corresponds with my goal (low taxes). However, my ability to achieve my goal (low taxes) is constrained by the behavior of others: I can only vote for a candidate who actually runs, so I may have to settle for a presidential candidate who is not ideal. Similarly, my ability to achieve my goal (low taxes) is constrained by information. If I cannot accurately determine which candidate is closest to me on the issue of taxes, I may inadvertently vote for the wrong person. Finally, my ability to achieve my goal (low taxes) is constrained by my resources. I might maximize the probability of lowering the tax rate by making a large donation to the campaign of a "low tax" candidate, but my ability to make the donation is limited by the balance in my bank account.

In 1957, a scholar named Anthony Downs wrote a book entitled An Economic Theory of Democracy. In his book, Downs applied the idea of rational choice tlleory to the decision to vote. In short, Downs hypothesized that people will vote if the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. More specifically, Downs concluded that people would vote if and only if the following condition is met:

In this equation, ''B'' is the benefit of having your preferred candidate win; in other words, if you could quantify it, how much happier and more prosperous will you be if Candidate A wins rather than Candidate B? The "p" is the probability that your action (voting) will give you the benefit of your preferred candidate winning. Together, then, the "p*B" term represents the expected value of the act of voting. The "e" in the equation is the cost-lost wages, lost leisure time, gas money, babysitting money, etc. associated with voting.

Intuitively, this model of the decision to vote makes a great deal of sense. The problem is that, as Downs ultimately concluded, this model predicts that people should rarely if ever vote in national elections. Why? Because the actual probability that your vote will determine the outcome of a national election is minuscule. If your vote is unlikely to be the deciding vote, then the outcome of the election is the same no matter what you do. Given that, why expend the resources to go to the ballot box?

Yet we know that people vote. So where does Downs's model go wrong? Why do people not behave as we expect them to behave? There are two possible explanations.

First, it is possible that when people engage in this calculation in their own minds, they use a much higher number for "p" than they should. Remember that we make our decisions based on the information we have, not on the true state of the world. Thus, if people misjudge the importance of their vote, if they think that the probability of casting the deciding vote is higher than it actually is, then they may believe the benefits of voting outweigh the costs.

Second, some scholars argue that we have to look more closely at how we define the benefits of voting. Voting may be an instrumental act, as Downs suggests, but it may also be an expressive act. An act is instrumental if it is a means to an end; voting is instrumental to the extent that we do it solely to facilitate the victory of our preferred candidate. An act is expressive if we get some benefit out of simply doing it (like singing when there is no one around to hear you). Voting may be an expressive act if you get some psychological benefit from the very act of voting. Perhaps some people believe that voting is a duty, a responsibility for every citizen. Or perhaps voting makes people feel proud or empowered. Expressive benefits are obtained simply from voting and do not depend on your preferred candidate winning or on your vote deciding the election.

Downs's theory of voting is simple and elegant, and, by focusing clearly on costs and benefits, it provides a useful framework for discussing the decision to participate in the political process. Moreover, in the years since Downs first published his book, numerous scholars have attempted to flesh out and refine the basic Downsian theory of voting so that it will better explain individual decisions to participate.

Still, some scholars find the Downsian model unsatisfying. Critics note that the model fails to explain some trends that we have noticed in political participation, because the rational choice model provides a "one size fits all" explanation for voting. For example, we know that older people tend to participate more than younger people. While we might be able to make a case that the expressive benefits of voting are higher for older generations (hint: think about the idea of civic responsibility and duty), the rational choice model by itself does not help us predict the demographic differences between those who vote and those who do not.

In addition, while the rational choice model may make intuitive sense for the act of voting, it seems inadequate to explain other forms of political behavior, such as political protest and grassroots activism. We can talk about the costs and benefits of these more hands-on types of participation: expressive benefits are high, while costs might include physical discomfort, risking arrest and missing work. Still, the rational choice model cannot help us understand why some people, but not others, [md that the benefits of protest politics are worth the costs.

As a result, scholars have sought a richer, more complex description of the decision to participate. Sidney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady provide one such rich description in their civic voluntarism model of political participation.

The Civic Voluntarism Model Of Participation

Verba, Schlozman and Brady's civic voluntarism model posits that the decision to participate in politics-engaging in activities from voting to giving money to distributing campaign literature-is a function of three factors: engagement in politics, resources and mobilization (Verba et al. 1995). In other words, people participate when they want to participate, when they are able to participate, and when they are asked to participate.

Engagement: In the context of the civic voluntarism model, people who are politically engaged are "aware of, know something about, and care about politics and public issues ... [and they] believe that they can, in fact, have a voice" (Verba et al., 1995:343). In other words, people are politically engaged if they Jvalll to participate. What determines whether a particular person is politically engaged? To answer this question, it is useful to break down the idea of political engagement into several component factors: political interest, political efficacy and strength of party identification.

A person may develop an interest in politics because her parents are interested in politics, because of an inspirational teacher, or because of peer group influences. In addition, membership in some formal or informal groups might heighten a person's understanding of the personal implications of political decisions; for example, a member of a labor union might be more aware of how U.S. trade policy affects his own paycheck and might thus be more interested in politics. Similarly, more educated people, who know more about how the political system works, may be in a better position to see the connections between government policy and their own lives and may thus become more interested in politics.

Political efficacy is the belief that you can make a difference in the political process; if you believe that your actions will make a difference, you are more likely to want to participate in the political process. Once again, education, family influences and group membership can contribute to your sense of political efficacy. Education increases political efficacy by giving you information about how the political process works; understanding the mechanics of the political process demystifies it, making you feel like you can use the system to your own advantage. Your family can increase your sense of political efficacy by building your self-esteem. Group membership can increase your sense of political efficacy by providing you with concrete guidance about how to navigate the political system. Moreover, group membership can increase your sense of political efficacy if the group has enjoyed political successes; if the group succeeded in the past, it can do so again, and you can be a part of that future success.

Individuals are also more likely to be engaged by politics if they strongly identify \vith a political party. You identify \vith the Republican party if you might say, "I am a Republican"; party identification is not about signing up to be an official member of a party, but only about how you see yourself. Party identification can be strong or weak. In other words, you might consider yourself a Democrat, but not feel a strong bond with the party, in which case you would be a weak Democrat. Strong partisans feel a close tie to their party. Just as people who consider themselves big fans of the Dallas Cowboys are more likely to follow pro football and want to attend football games, strong partisans-those who identify strongly with one political party or another- are more likely to pay attention to and want to be involved in politics.

Empirical evidence strongly suggests that people who are more engaged in politics are more likely to participate. As Verba et al. put it, "interest, information, efficacy, and partisan intensity provide the desire, knowledge, and self-assurance that impel people to be engaged by politics" (Verba et al., 1995:354). Collectively, these factors make people want to participate in politics.

Resources: Although a desire to participate in politics is necessary for political participation, it is not enough. Remember our hypothetical person who wants low taxes; our hypothetical citizen may want to participate by making a big donation to a pro-low-taxes candidate, but he cannot do that if he does not have money to give. In order to be able to participate, you must have resources. Three key resources that affect a person's ability to participate in politics are money, time and civic skills; these allow people to translate their desires into actions.

Money affects political participation in a relatively straightforward way. Donating money to a political party, interest group or political candidate is a clear act of political participation. However, as noted earlier, you cannot donate money you do not have. Thus, people with better paying jobs or family money are able to participate in a way that is difficult if not impossible for those who are just scraping by.

Participating in politics also takes time. Even simple acts, such as voting, take time out of your busy day, time you could be spending at work, with your family or engaged in leisure activities. Other types of participation, such as driving to your state capital to attend a protest rally or going door to door to gather petition signatures, are extremely timeintensive. Certain demographic groups have more time than others. People with children and people who have to work more than one job may not have time for political participation. Retirees, on the other hand, have more free time to devote to political activities; pay attention to the people who are working at your polling place the next time you voteyou will likely see many senior citizens.

Civic skills also facilitate political participation. Civic skills are communication skills and organizational skills that "allow citizens to use time and money effectively in political life" (Verba et al., 1995:304). Having civic skills does not just allow you to participate; it allows you to participate well People with good civic skills are able to make effective pleas to their representatives, convince other citizens to join them in political activities, coordinate rallies and letter-writing campaigns, and play significant roles in political campaigns. Education and group membership lead to improved civic skills.

Your formal education in elementary school, secondary school and college helps you develop your written and oral communication skills, and ultimately these skills can help you participate in the political process. School also helps you develop social skills; from playground games to group projects, your education has prepared you to work with others toward a common goal. The ability to cooperate and to understand and play by rules will make you a more effective participant in the political process.

Even after you complete your education, you can continue to develop your civic skills by practicing them on the job or in social groups. Certain jobs-white collar jobs and unionized labor jobs, for example-give people opportunities to practice civic skills. When you organize a meeting, write a memorandum to your boss or network at a professional convention, you are building your civic skills. Similarly, people who belong to church groups, fraternal organizations and even bowling leagues have the opportunity to practice organizing and communicating, skills they can later bring to bear on the political process. Acquisition of civic skills is part of "social capital," the benefit we derive from belonging to social groups.

Mobilization: Quite simply, mobilization is asking people to participate. Even people who have the desire to participate in politics and the resources to devote to that participation may not know how to direct their desire and skill into concrete actions. Savvy politicians, political parties, interest groups and community groups mobilize potential voters and activists.

Individuals who participate in organized religious activities are far more likely to be obilized by politicians, parties and Interest ;oups. For example, in the 1994 Virginia Senate race, portrayed in the documentary film "A Perfect Candidate," both Oliver North (the Republican challenger) and Chuck Robb (the Democratic incumbent) visited churches and spoke at Sunday services. They did not necessarily say "vote for me"; rather, they related to churchgoers, allowed congregants to identify with and form personal connections with the candidates.

Churches are not the only groups that politicians and parties attempt to mobilize. Social groups like the Rotary Club, the Junior League, and the Knights of Columbus are targets for mobilization. Why are churches and social groups such attractive targets for mobilization? First, they provide ready-made audiences. Moreover, the nature of the organization- the particular type of church or social group-provides cues about the interests and values of that audience. When a politician speaks to a local chamber of commerce, for example, she knows she can mobilize the group by appealing to their interest in policies affecting small businesses. Finally, as discussed earlier, church-goers and members of social groups have more civic skills, and thus mobilizing them will have a greater payoff; these are people who might show support through participatory activities beyond simple voting.

Implications of the Civic Voluntarism Model

The civic voluntarism model adds richness and complexity to the basic rational choice model of political participation. The model tells us that the benefits of voting are higher for people who are engaged in politics, who have a real desire to be involved; costs are higher for people who lack resources (money, time and civic skills); and the costs are lower for people who are mobilized (because they know how to put their skills and energy to good use). As a result, people ,vith high levels of education, supportive and politically active families, and better paying jobs are more likely to vote.

The model really highlights the importance of belonging to social groups, including churches. Group membership provides, if you will, the participatory hat trick. People who are involved in religious, professional and social groups are more engaged in politics, have the resources to participate and are more likely to be mobilized by politicians.

The model also has important implications for who participates. Specifically, the "haves "-those who already enjoy advantages such as an education, a supportive community, and money-are most likely to participate and thus shape public policy. In contrast, those who are struggling and most need or desire a change in government policy must also struggle to participate and to participate effectively. As a result, the status quo is favored.

The challenge is to use the lessons of the civic voluntarism model to equalize the opportunities to participate for disadvantaged segments of society. How can we engage people in the political process? What policies can we implement to increase the civic skills of our population and reduce the role of money in the political process? How can we reach out to mobilize the disaffected?

Pro & Con: Should Convicted Felons Be Allowed to Vote?

Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have laws that prohibit convicted felons from voting. Some laws disenfranchise only felons serving prison sentences; others affect felons on probation and parole; and some permanently disenfranchise felons (in other words, once you have been convicted of a felony, you lose your right to vote for life).

Exercise 2-1

Using the search engine of your choice, locate the website for Christopher Uggen, a sociologist at the University of Minnesota. Scroll down to a link for felon voting restrictions by state, and complete the following table. (Note: The table can also be completed using the "roll over" map above.)

Exercise 2-2

Ideology

Visit http://www.politicalcompass.org/index and click on "Take the Test." You will move through six pages of questions about your opinions on a wide range of issues, from the proper role of religion in schools to whether abstract art is really art. When you are done, click on a button reading ''Now Let's See Where You Stand." The page will explain the dimensions along which your own views are mapped, and if you scroll to the bottom you will find a graph placing you on the ideological map. Note: Please use an Internet service other than Explorer for this exercise.

Party Affiliation

As you probably know by now, knowing your ideology is only half the battle. Parties are important in the U.S. political system, so you have to figure out which political party best reflects your ideology and policy preferences. To get you started, visit the website for Third Party Central: http://www.3pc.net/index.html. Choose "Party matchmaking Service" from the menu, then follow the directions to begin using the party matchmaking service. You will answer a series of questions about your policy preferences. After you answer the questions, click on "submit answers," and the site will display a list of which parties most closely reflect your policy positions.

Exercise 2-3

This exercise is designed to walk you through the process of writing a political letter to an elected official, unelected government official, or news outlet. After you complete the worksheet, write your political letter. Turn in the worksheet, your political letter, and an addressed/stamped envelope. After grading your assignment, your instructor will put your letter in the envelope, seal it, and drop it in the mail for you. Congratulations! You are participating!

Formulating your opinion

Voicing your opinion

Now, you need to choose a recipient for your letter. Who is the most appropriate audience for your opinion? Consider the following questions in making your decision:

• Is there a single political figure who is in a unique position to accomplish (or initiate) the change or other action you propose?
• Is there a single political figure who might be particularly receptive to your message, either because he or she shares your concern or because you are his or her constituent? Of you are a constituent of your recipient, your letter should reflect that.)
• Is the message you wish to convey one which is better suited to a grassroots movement? If so,what media outlet would best reach your desired audience (a local paper, a national paper, a special-interest magazine, etc.)?

Write Your Letter

Now you know who you will write to and what you will say. The next step is to actually write the letter. Your letter should be typed, single-spaced. At the top of the page, type the date. Skip a line, then type the address of the person to whom you are sending the letter. Skip another line, then type a salutation ("Dear Representative Smith," for example). Skip yet another line, and begin typing your letter.

If you want the recipient to take you seriously, your letter should be polite, well-organized and grammatically correct. You should address all of the points raised in this worksheet: why this issue is important to you, why you chose to write to this particular person, why that person should listen to you, what you want the person to do, and any other supporting information you feel compelled to include. The finished letter should be one or two typewritten pages. Be sure to skip a line between each paragraph.

When you have made your case, thank the recipient for her attention. Skip a line, type "Sincerely," skip three or four lines, and type your name and address (so the recipient can write back to you). When you print out the letter, you should sign your name in the blank space between the "Sincerely" and your typewritten name.

Make sure that you type or write the full address of the recipient in the center of the envelope. Include the return address (your name and full address) in the upper left-hand corner of the envelope. Add a stamp in the upper right-hand corner, and you are set to go!

Exercise 2-4

1.1 Exercise 2-5

Imagine that you have been hired by a nonprofit organization declicated to increasing political participation in the United States. Your job is to develop policy proposals aimed at increasing participation. Your proposals may be for specific projects that the nonprofit will undertake, or they may be public policy proposals that the nonprofit will lobby for at the local, state or national level.

Using what you know about the decision to participate, what three policy proposals would you recommend? For each policy proposal, state whether it would increase resources, engagement, or mobilization, and explain how it would do so.

Now, for each policy, consider who the policy will actually affect. In othe rwords, what types of people will be more likely to respond to your policy by participating more, and in what ways?

Exercise 2-6