Michigan model

The Ann Arbor Model (also Michigan model) is a model of empirical electoral research. It was developed in the 1950s by social scientists Angus Campbell, Gerald Gurin and Warren E. Miller at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Ann Arbor According to the model, the electoral behavior by the interaction can be political-institutional, explain socio-economic and psychological condition factors. It is assumed that the mass of voters is not faced with a completely new and thus open decision-making situation prior to each election. Rather, they bring long-term valid preferences or dislikes in relation to competing parties. The direct influence factors the settings of the voters so with the candidate and the position occupied by the parties in the current, controversial topics are associated with psychological and social factors primarily of party identification. This " psychological membership " in a party is the voters in every decision as so-called "standing decision" is available that is chosen, as long as no significant other factors speak against it. A determined by the choice of party identification is therefore also referred to as "normal election ". In addition, the party identification indirectly affects the perception and processing of political information. The choice decision is thus obtained from the interaction of previous experiences and subjective interpretations situation.

The decision process of the voters can be compared to a funnel at its starting point the voting decision in the context of the Ann Arbor - model. The party affiliation as a long -term factor, and the topics and people as a short term factors that precede the.

Long-term factor - party affiliation

To describe the social correlates of party ties are particularly suitable sociological models. While these models are limited by the explanation of short-term " volatile electorate " see, they are extremely well suited to determine causal factors of voting behavior, which act over a long period of time.

In this context, a distinction is usually the micro - macro-sociological explanation of the models. The micro-sociological model suggests that arise party ties " especially through political socialization and communication with opinion leaders [ ... ] and by the tendency of the individual, with his family, friends and work colleagues to live in a stress- free as possible ratio." In addition to this individual sociologically oriented model, party loyalty could be explained by macro-sociological models. Accordingly party ties are the result of long-lasting coalitions of political parties with large social groups (eg trade unions, churches, etc.). Belonging to one of these so-called cleavages caused therefore a lasting affinity for a party. The party affiliation remains unchallenged even by the occasional election of another party, at least as long as the dissenting vote remains an exceptional situation.

In addition to the direct impact on the voting decision, the attitude of the voters on specific technical issues and candidates is influenced by the party affiliation. " The party identification helps people assess candidates without having to find out about many of their properties ." Information about politicians thus be processed interpretively after their party political affiliation and by subjective prejudices. Viewers take from reports true especially what will fit their preconceived image of the candidate; the attention is higher for contributions that support the existing view. Although a decline in party loyalty is demonstrated repeatedly in empirical studies, they remain in Germany for the voting behavior of central importance. Other factors but are increasingly relevant due to this development.

Short-term factors - issues and candidate orientation

Declining party ties lead in Ann Arbor model necessarily lead to increasing importance of political issues and candidates. This is also generally not problematic development. Especially from a normative point of view, showed signs that indicate an increased thematic Choose positive values. " Too beautiful but would be freed from the social structure mediated bonds and cognitively highly mobilized voters, which is based exclusively on factual issues ." That one of such an ideal situation but hardly can go out, can be explained by the rationalist theory of voter behavior.

The starting point of rational choice theory is an economic approach, make according to the voters their voting decision depends on which option do they expect the greatest personal benefit. As an optional offers on the market, the voters competing parties offer their different products ( choice programs). So that voters can filter out which program generates the greatest individual benefit for them, they would have actually the electoral programs of the parties " scour ". Since the voters in the logic of an economic approach usually the goal of utility maximization, that is a maximum benefit at the lowest possible cost, it follows this is hardly read pages and pages of election programs and compare. Much more cost-effective by contrast, information about individuals can be obtained. This is especially true if the evaluation of candidates primarily through role- distant features, such as sympathy assessments or evaluation of physical attractiveness happens. In such a case, not least the private lives of politicians with be decisive for the choice decision.

Now it seems not very reasonable already on theoretical considerations, strictly from each other to separate the perception of candidates and issues. Rather, in this context, a complementary, rather than be taken to an alternative view of the two short-term factors. " The voter chooses not people rather than programs, but programs with people ' [ ... ]. He does not choose the candidate instead of the party, but the candidate ( s ) of a party. "