Intensity

<h1>Text Preview</h1> <p> <P><b>Voter intensity</b> gauges the likelihood that people will vote and otherwise participate in elections. It is measured by how strongly people feel about their role as the electorate, whether they feel a personal stake in the policy agenda, and their degree of political socialization. When people feel connected to the political system, they are more likely to vote and participate in campaigns or other political activities. High voter intensity does not necessarily guarantee that these people will vote or be politically active. For example, some people who want to vote cannot, whether because of illness or incapacity, unexpected occurrences, or lack of legal standing. </P> </p> <p> <P>Low voter intensity also keeps people away from the polls. People with low intensity choose not to vote for various reasons, including doubt that their vote will make a difference and lack of desire to wait in line at the polls. Other causes of low voter intensity are disinterest in politics and lack of knowledge about the issues and candidates.<br></P> <P>Voter intensity is directly related to <b>political efficacy—</b>people’s understanding of and impact on politics. More specifically, <b>internal efficacy</b> refers to how well people understand the political system and whether they participate in political activities. <b>External efficacy</b> refers to whether people believe their efforts make a difference in policy decisions.<br></P> <P>People who follow politics and have a strong understanding of the issues and candidates have high internal efficacy and are more likely to vote. Similarly, people who believe their votes and other political involvement can affect policies have high external efficacy, and their voter intensity is greater. Studies of voter and non-voter behavior suggest that most people who do not vote have low internal and external political efficacy.</P> </p> <p> <P>Voter intensity also depends on issue saliency. In other words, it depends on whether voters believe the election matters to everyday life. Examples include certain knee-jerk issues such as abortion, taxes, and gay-rights, which may produce a temporarily higher voter turnout because the issues may mean something more immediate to the voter.</P> </p> <p> <P>In contrast, foreign policy issues generally have very low saliency with the voter. An exception was the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War, but voters do not usually relate foreign policy with changes in their everyday existence. Complex issues such as national debt also have low saliency because they tend to be difficult to understand. They are not necessarily ignored, but they are not of high importance to the general population.<br></P> <P><b>Consensus</b> and <b>polarization</b> also affect voter intensity. When the nation has a high level of consensus, or agreement, on campaign issues, people do not feel the obligation or necessity to participate. However, when the nation is polarized, or disagrees, on issues and the policy agenda, people typically feel compelled to “weigh in” by contributing to campaigns, voting, and discussing the issues.</P> </p> <p id="TextCopyright">Copyright 2006 The Regents of the University of California and Monterey Institute for Technology and Education</p>