This CNN article talks about the lack of enthusiasm among women voters this year as compared to men. The article reports that in a survey of likely voters 23 percent of women voters claimed to be “extremely enthusiastic” about voting while 38 percent of men reported this level of enthusiasm. With more women running for congressional seats than ever before and women in 8 states running as their party’s nominee for governor, the authors of the article seem to think the lack of enthusiasm among women voters is counter-intuitive. The article points to a couple reasons for this gap: despondency over the economy and unemployment, and races turning into character wars rather than campaigns on policy issues. The end of the article claims that women must get to the polls to make their voices heard on landmark policies issues, such as unemployment insurance extensions, that congress will debate in the next couple months.
If we think back to Johnson’s cost-benefit analysis of voting, women’s disinterest in voting this election isn’t as appalling as the article suggests; the ladies just have it figured out. The probability that each individual woman’s vote will be decisive multiplied by the benefit they expect to receive from their preferred candidate winning simply doesn’t outweigh the perceived costs of voting. Assuming this lack of enthusiasm among women translates into lesser percentages of women venturing to the polls, in Johnson’s opinion, women are simply acting rationally.
1 comment:
Amy, I like to agree with you; however, let’s make the assumption that men are as rational as women. What else could cause the difference between men and women voters? Here is one excerpt from the article you posted on:
“In a context in which 13.9 percent of women are now officially living in poverty (the highest rate in 15 years) and facing long-term unemployment, it's not surprising that women lack enthusiasm for voting. What's missing, for most women, are the political narratives about the things that matter to them: good jobs, clean air, health care and what it will really take to rebuild our national economy.”
An important point this brings up, is that maybe the “things that matter to [women]” differ from those that matter to men. Maybe the topics men are so enthusiastic about aren’t as thrilling to women. Furthermore, what if women interpret a campaign ad differently than men do? Some of the Perriello ads seem to be directed at workers in male dominated industries. Take a look at this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqc8DuWqY74. Not a single woman seen or mentioned. Hence, this add may not be as persuasive for women as it is for men.
As the video imbedded in the article says: women take more time to formulate a decision. In other words women tend to seek more information than men before they vote, which translates into higher costs in voting, leading to more disincentives for women to vote.
Another argument I didn’t find very convincing in the article was the fact that more women running for office should automatically yield a higher percentage of women voters enthusiastic about the election. What if women don’t feel that the female candidates would represent them better than their male opponents? We can’t assume that more women will be more enthusiastic to vote for women just because of gender and completely ignore the policies.
Finally, the statistics given in this article are drawn from a sample and as we discussed in class, statistical significance says a lot about sample data. Without any information on how these percentages were formulated it’s difficult to tell if they truly represent the population.
Post a Comment