|
|
Introduction Throughout our nation’s vast political history, there have emerged many candidates for political office that one would consider extreme. These “extreme” candidates influence the perceptions of the constituency, which in turn influences voter turnout. There have been such infamous names as David Duke, George Wallace, , and Elaine Brown, who have provoked large public uproars over their political beliefs such responses translated into increased voter turnout to keep these candidates out of office, or in some cases, to elect them to office. However, the definition of an extreme candidate is based on one person’s values, and how he or she sees the particular candidate. For this reason, an extreme political candidate will be defined as a candidate who has at least one platform idea, a personality or appearance that goes against the values of a relatively large sector of constituents. Why is it important to look at how extremist candidates influence voter turnout? One reason is voter turnout has been declining since the beginning of the century. One would have thought that after the passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, increased efforts at voter registration, and the abolishment of the poll tax and literacy tests, that voter turnout would most certainly go up. However, more and more Americans do not attempt to vote, and have no interest in our government. In an article in The American Prospect, it was stated that the NES found that the percentage of Americans who “believe that they don’t have a say in what the government does” has risen from 31 percent in 1952 to 53 percent in 1996 (Sifry 2000). Are Americans really that apathetic to our government? I believe not. To understand that Americans really do care about our government, one must look at how “extremist” political candidates in national, state and local elections have caused voter turnout in the constituency to increase. The increases in voter turnout that these candidates cause occur in two ways. First the turnout can be caused by a reaction of fear in the constituency, to try and make sure that the candidate does not obtain office. Second, voter turnout can be increased by a reaction in the constituency that is favorable to the extreme candidate’s policies Coming to this hypothesis was a tough process. When reviewing political science data that showed how drastically voter turnout has been going down since the beginning of the twentieth century, one would find it hard to believe that Americans care so little about the way our country is run. Especially after the events of September 11th, much has been written about the increased sense of patriotism in this country. However, does patriotism translate into increased voter turnout on its own, or must there be some stimulus such as a radical candidate? It would seem intelligent to say that Americans would feel most threatened when their sense of liberty seems capable of being taken away by a radical political candidate. This is the logic that this paper will address; that Americans will feel a sense of urgency to vote and make a difference, as a result of a extreme candidate. But some times radical candidates also appeal to a vast electorate, even though some may view their platforms as astronomically crazy. David Duke is considered an extreme political candidate, just by his association with the KKK, if not his insane political beliefs, but that did not stop him from almost winning a Senate office in Louisiana (Parent and Perry 2003). Increased voter turnout caused by extreme candidates has been a popular topic in political science literature. Salaman and Evera (1973) found that while, the number of blacks registered to vote rose by 1 million persons by 1970, the number of white persons registered to vote rose by 2 million which negated the rise of black registration. This comparison shows that whites would vote not only in reaction to the increase in black candidates, but also to slow or stem the increase in black political power, which could increase the likelihood that an extremist candidate wins. Additionally, with increased news coverage, some voting was undoubtedly in reaction to events that might be occurring on the other side of the nation. Sam Kernell (1973) backs these findings in saying that “white voter turnout represents a response to the potential and actual black turnout.” To give further evidence that whites are increasingly influenced by what the black populace does, Huckfeldt and Kohfeld (1989) believe that “the defection of white democrats is a direct response to the threat that black voters pose to white hegemony.” These research findings all show that voter turnout and identification between white and blacks have a strong relationship, in that they both cause each other, but has other literature had something to say about the hypothesis at hand? Salaman and Evera (1973) found that in county elections in the state of Mississippi, some blacks voted for the white candidate rather than for the black candidate (1973). This data says that blacks were effectively increasing turnout by voting for the white candidate because of fear of what would happen to them if they voted for the black candidate (Salaman and Evera 1973). This evidence is hard to comprehend. It is startling to believe that, blacks would vote for a candidate that, in all likelihood, would make things politically harder for them. Salaman and Evera (1973) show even more evidence against the hypothesis of this paper, in finding that black voter turnout was lower in counties in Mississippi where blacks were most vulnerable to intimidation and violence. The candidates in these counties would seem extreme to blacks because of their anti-civil rights stance, however blacks still did not vote, in fear of the consequences, therefore turnout was lower. An opposite viewpoint that could be taken is that turnout was lower because black in Mississippi were not allowed to vote, and still treated as slaves.
|
