The Political Awareness And Voting Behavioramong College Students
Review of Related Literature
This part on related literature and studies by noted researchers, scholars, and parallel local researchers had been selected to support the objectives of the study. More specifically, this portion will present the point of view of different authorities on political awareness and voting behavior among college students. Studies conducted here and abroad are also cited to establish the relationship of the study.
Related Literature
Voting is a complex form of public opinion that is always surrounded by unfamiliar issues and diversified opinions. Voting behavior is a set of personal electoral activities, including participation in electoral campaigns, turnout at the polls, and voting preference is choosing for whom to vote (Bratton, 2013). Social and attitude factors are related to voting behavior. Attitude factors including, assessment of the personal characters of the candidate, evaluations of government performance orientations on specific political issues, party identification and ideology. And for social factors, race, religion and social class (Institute of Social Research, University of Michigan, 2010).
Besides, other researches in the Philippines have also touched the analysis of the behavior and preference of the voter, especially in the country. According to the Institute of for Political and Electoral Reform of the Philippines or IPER, the Filipino voters’ behavior and preference is highly different basing on their 1995 and 2003 studies. In their 1995 study, the main determinants of the Filipino vote, in respective ranks are; popularity, endorsement, benefit to voters, and party program or platform.
On their 2003 study, the IPER presented significantly different determining factors of the Filipino voters, these are the benefit factor, party program or platform, popularity and endorsement, respectively (IPER, 2004). This would present that there is a significant shift of the frame of the Filipino voter on the basis of voting choices. There is a need to recheck the situation of the voters’ behavior and preferences, because the votes that are cast by the people will be the determining factor of the national political administration. The basis on how these votes are made will be essential on how the trajectory of the Philippine government would move. Thus, there is a need to understand if the voting behavior and preference are in congruence in political maturity.
Likewise, the elections in the Philippines were never safe from any issue or problem. Some of these problems include vote buying, violence, influence of political dynasties, inefficiency of PCOS machines and black propaganda (Oliveros,2013). There exists an alarming situation of the electoral situation at the micro-level, voters choose candidates on very different reasons, including campaign methods and characteristics of candidates. There exists a high level of uneducated voters whom basis for voting are highly different from those who are educated (Santiago, 2012). There is an increased concern on looking at the basis of how voters exercise their suffrage, the basis on how they vote, and especially on the reasons on the voting choices.
Moreover, Philippine elections are like hyper-fiestas: the joy of joining one’s friends, neighbors, and the entire country in an exuberant show of national pride and support for the candidate, and the drama and excitement of the violence, cunning and money that underlies it all.
As a result, Philippine election studies tend to look at elections from the top down. Studies mainly focus on the structure of the electoral system, candidates’ personalities, resources, machinery and tactics, and of course, the “three g’s” of guns, goons and gold.
In the broader election literature, however, voting is perhaps the most widely studied political act. The appeal of voting is its uniqueness. Voting is, “by far, the most common act of citizenship in any democracy and because electoral returns are decisive in determining who shall govern, political scientists appropriately devote a great deal of attention to the vote. There are several widely accepted factors that influence voting behavior. Chief among these variables is socioeconomic status (education, income and occupation) with education as the primary influence. (Verba, F. ,2015)
Likewise, in the study of Lande (2014) showed that at least one classification from all census categories had a significant relationship with support for or against a certain presidential candidate. Languages, however, had the strongest correlations, with voters tending to favor candidates who shared their ethnolinguistic background. This influence also often spread to neighboring provinces or other provinces in the region, even in language differed.
Voting Behavior
Voting behavior is a form of political behavior. Understanding voters’ behavior can explain how and why decisions were made either by public decision-makers, which has been a central concern for political scientists Goldman (2006), or by the electorate. To interpret voting behavior both political science and psychology expertise were necessary and therefore the field of political psychology emerged. Political psychology researchers study ways in which affective influence may help voters make more informed voting choices, with some proposing that affect may explain how the electorates make informed political choices in spite of low overall levels of political attentiveness and sophistication.
To make inferences and predictions about behavior concerning a voting decision, certain factors such as gender, race, culture or religion must be considered. Moreover, key public influences include the role of emotions, political socialization, tolerance of diversity of political views and the media. The effect of these influences on voting behavior is best understood through theories on the formation of attitude, beliefs, schema, knowledge structures and the practice of information processing.
For example, surveys from different countries indicate that people are generally happier in individualistic cultures where they have rights such as the right to vote (Diener, 2000). The degree, to which voting decision is affected by internal processing systems of political information and external influences, alters the quality of making truly democratic decisions (Andreadis & Chadjipadelis 2005).
Juma’, (2011) explained that voting behavior are set of attitudes and beliefs towards elections at the national as well as, at the local level. They are basically three source political scientist look at in order to analyze why people or voter behave the way they do, why they vote the way they do and why they chose the parties that they do;
- looking at the result of the election (seeing whose voting for what or women/men voting or generation voting for what)
- survey work ahead
- doing some studies of political socialization which is the process by which people gain their political attitudes, political opinions of growing up process.
Studies disclosed that exposure to informative media coverage and political advertising significantly influenced the vote choice of the electorates. David (2016), reported that the likelihood of voting for celebrity candidates for President and Vice President was associated with the voter's education, television exposure, and residence in the capital city. He further reported that celebrity endorsements also influenced the candidate preference of a presidentiable and vice presidentiable. Religion was also viewed as an influencing factor in the voter's decision. Using multinomial logistic regression analysis, a study indicated that religious affiliation and the degree of an individual's behavior and beliefs were key predictors of vote choice in a presidential election.
In 2006, a study made by Macapagal using a three-way ANOVA revealed that the respondents perceived political candidates positively. The females and respondents from the lower social classes showed a more favorable perception of politicians. It also showed that respondents believed that female politicians were more attractive, emotional, intelligent and religious but male politicians were more corrupt. There were also findings that females tended to view female politicians more positively.
Similarly in the Philippines, the Institute for Political and Electoral Reform (IPER) on the other hand, used Factor Analysis to identify factor groups that determine the voting behavior of the Filipino electorate. They are the following: the benefit factor (characteristics that can be of benefit to the voter), political machinery, popularity and endorsement of traditional networks.
Approximately, one month before the 2014 election in Taipei, survey participants were asked about their party identification, explicit political party preference, ethnic identity and voting intention. With the use of hierarchical regression analysis, results showed that the impact of implicit preferences on voting appeared to be present across different cultures; that voters evaluate candidates from their ethnic group more favorably than those of other ethnic groups.
Additionally, significant survey data indicate that civic disengagement is especially pronounced among our nation’s youth. As Putnam (2000) observed, there is a “generation gap in civic engagement,” with each generation accelerating “a treacherous rip current” of civic disengagement. Americans growing up in recent decades vote less often than their elders, pay less attention to politics, and show lower levels of social trust and knowledge of politics (Bennett and Craig 1997; Keeter et al. 2002).
In the United States of America, the National Association of Secretaries of State’s New Millennium Project (1999) studied the political attitudes of 15-24 year-olds and dramatically concluded, “America is in danger of developing a permanent non-voting class”. The study argued that young people lack interest, trust, and knowledge about American politics, politicians, and public life—and are generally cynical about America’s future. Besides, Individuals with more educational attainment vote at higher rates. In fact, according to Nie, Junn, and Stehlik-Barry (1996), this is “the best documented finding in American political behavior research.” To some extent, educational attainment may be a proxy for social status or personal motivation and ability, but some careful studies find that education actually boosts turnout (Dee, 2003; Sondheimer & Green, 2010).
Also, examining this group of citizens has proven to be difficult because of the vast differences in walks of life that one can find among them. Some young adults are getting married, some of them have children, some are single parents, some are attending college, others are practicing a trade, while still others are unemployed. Research has proven that those who vote once have a much higher likelihood of voting again, and so the impact a university can have on a college student’s potential to participate in democracy through voting (Longo & Meyer, 2006).
In addition, when young adults gained the right to vote , those with some college experience aged 18-29 participated in the election at an impressive rate of 72.5 percent; however, this rate has consistently fallen until today, where the most recent data from the 2012 presidential election presents a mere 55.9 percent participation rate among those with some college experience (CIRCLE, 2013). Universities pride themselves on being the center of ideas and intellectual exchange, and one would assume that if this were true, those who attend said universities would be among the most involved citizens.
One of the landmark studies on student opinion in regards to politics was College Students Talk Politics which was published in 1993. This study laid the basis for what is perceived to be the typical view that college students view politics as “individualistic, divisive, negative, and often counterproductive to the ills of society” and other studies to say that “this generation of college students is cynical and distrustful of government, apathetic and indifferent toward public affairs, unknowledgeable about politics, self-centered, and generally unconcerned with society” (Niemi & Hanmer, 2010).
If college students in the 1990’s were characterized by political pessimism, apathy, and conceit then today’s students can be characterized as optimistic, caring, and community minded. In 2006, the Associated Press released a poll that found that those under the age of 30 were 19 percent more likely to trust that the government was spending money wisely when it came to funds allocated for the renewal and cleaning of the Gulf Coast than all other age groups.
Four other surveys have indicated a reversal in the trend of apathy in that students are “more interested in politics, believed voting was a civic duty, and were less cynical and apathetic” (Niemi & Hanmer, 2010). Even more telling was a Harvard poll which found that 64 percent of students expected to be more politically involved than their parents.
Most studies and research are finding that students today are focusing more of their efforts locally. Rather than getting caught up in the fervor of presidential elections, students prefer, and are choosing to, make differences in their communities rather than spending their energy in what they see as largely irrelevant elections.
In 2001, three in four graduated high school students reported having volunteered during their time in high school, an increase of 13 percent over the rate reported in 1976 (Longo & Meyer, 2006). Further, 2005 surveys showed that students were planning to volunteer during their college years at a rate higher than ever had previously been reported. This dissonance has baffled researchers who have found that college students today have a paradoxical combination of moral idealism and optimism and political cynicism (Longo & Meyer, 2006). Students, not trusting politicians to get the job done, have decided to put matters into their own hands and turn to community service as their alternative to politics.
Political Awareness
Recent research indicates that levels of political knowledge affect the acceptance of democratic principles, attitudes toward specific issues, and political participation. There is evidence that political participation is in part a positional good and is shaped by relative as well as absolute levels of educational attainment. Contrary to findings from 30 years ago, recent research suggests that traditional classroom-based civic education can significantly raise political knowledge (Galston,W., 2001) On the other hand, Thomas Patterson (2002) noted, that today’s young adults are less politically interested and informed than any cohort of young people on record. His study of citizen involvement in presidential elections concluded that the period between 1960 and 2000 marks the longest decline in turnout in the nation’s history. Finally, in The Disappearing American Voter, Ruy Teixeira (1992) notes that although turnout has declined across all age groups since 1960, turnout decline has been the most rapid among voters under age 24, creating a widening age gap in participation.
A Survey research conducted in the US, has demonstrated that young people are considerably less knowledgeable of and interested in political affairs. Michael X. Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter (1996), for example, note that the average college graduate today knows little more about public affairs than did the average high school graduate in the 1940s.
The National Assessment of Educational Program’s “Civics Report Card for the Nation” reported that only one-in-ten young people ages 18-29 could name both their U.S. Senators, compared to one in-five of those ages 30-45 and one-in-three of those over the age of 45 (Delli Carpini and Keeter 1996).
These trends have been charted by the annual survey of freshman, conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at the University of California, Los Angeles since the mid-1960s, involving 250,000 matriculating college freshmen each year. In the more than three decades since the initiation of the survey, every significant indicator of political engagement has fallen by at least half (Galston 2003; Kellogg 2001; Mason and Nelson 2000). The survey reports, for example, that only 26 percent of students entering college expressed an interest in keeping up with political affairs—the lowest level reported since the survey was established in 1966, which was then reported at 58 percent (Galston 2003).
The National Association of Secretaries of State also found that only 26 percent of young people believed that “being involved in democracy and voting” is “extremely important” (1999). Similarly, Stephen Bennett and Eric Rademacher (1997) found that young people aged 18-30 to be less politically interested, knowledgeable, or active than those over 30.
Moreover, the College Students Talk Politics conducted by The Hardwood Group (1993) found out that a vast majority of college students were active in the 2004 election. Researchers found that 85 percent of college students closely followed the campaign, nearly 75 percent discussed politics weekly, nearly 90 percent said they were registered, and 77 percent said they voted. Moreover, voter mobilization was high as political parties and student groups actively registered student voters, and an impressive 62 percent of college students said they encouraged someone else to register to vote (Neimi and Hammer 2004)
The students at Wingspread (Long 2002) noted that they see democracy as richly participatory; that negotiating differences is a key element of politics; that their service in communities was done in the context of systemic change; and that higher education needs to do more to promote civic education.
Furthermore, the students proclaimed, “We see ourselves as misunderstood by those who measure student engagement by conventional standards that don’t always fit our conceptions of democratic participation”. The New Student Politics concludes by quoting E.J. Dionne’s (2000) analysis that, “the great reforming generations are the ones that marry the aspirations of service to the possibilities of politics and harness the good work done in local communities to transform a nation”.
This was certainly the finding from The Civic and Political Health of the Nation report (Keeter et al. 2002), which asserted that colleges and universities can be successful mediators by providing opportunities for open, deliberative discussions and other civic work.
Similarly, Jill McMillan and Katy Harriger’s (2002) research on deliberation at Wake Forrest University found that college students can be taught to imagine and implement a new kind of politics through conventional politics, especially seen in the 2004 election. The related Literature and studies presented here are selected as the basis of their significance to strengthen the findings of this study on political awareness and voting behavior among college students.
