Class Bias in Voter Turnout, Representation, and Income Inequality

Abstract

The mass franchise led to more responsive government and a more equitable distribution of resources in the United States and other democracies. Recently in America, however, voter participation has been low and increasingly biased toward the wealthy. We investigate whether this electoral “class bias” shapes government ideology, the substance of economic policy, and distributional outcomes, thereby shedding light on both the old question of whether who votes matters and the newer question of how politics has contributed to growing income inequality. Because both lower and upper income groups try to use their resources to mobilize their supporters and demobilize their opponents, we argue that variation in class bias in turnout is a good indicator of the balance of power between upper and lower income groups. And because lower income voters favor more liberal governments and economic policies we expect that less class bias will be associated with these outcomes and a more equal income distribution. Our analysis of data from the U.S. states confirms that class bias matters for these outcomes.

Class Attitudes, Political Knowledge, and Support for Redistribution in an Era of Inequality

“…High inequality also undermines political equality, enhancing the influence that the wealthy have over public policy (Gilens, ; Hacker and Pierson, ; Page, Seawright, and Lacombe, ; Schlozman, Verba, and Brady, ). This can contribute to a vicious cycle, whereby inequality depresses participation (Solt, , ), further exacerbating socioeconomic biases in political influence and representation (Avery, ; Franko, Kelly, and Witko, ). High levels of income inequality have been linked to partisan polarization (McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal, ; but see O'Brian, ), which increases gridlock, and can further constrain government's ability to enact policies that reduce inequality (Enns et al., ).…”

Labor Unions and Support for Redistribution in an Era of Inequality*

“…Indeed, unionized workers have higher wages and more generous benefits than do their nonunionized counterparts (Rosenfeld, ; Western and Rosenfeld, ), and working poverty is lower in U.S. counties with high levels of unionization (Brady, Baker, and Finnigan, ). Labor unions have been linked to more liberal public policy and lower inequality (Becher, Stegmueller, and Käppner, ; Bucci, ; Franko, Kelly, and Witko, ; Kelly and Witko, 2012; Radcliff and Saiz, ), as well as greater demand for redistribution and liberal public policy (Franko, ), at the U.S.‐state level, and greater political equality in representation (Ellis, ; Flavin, ). In a recent review, Ahlquist () notes that higher levels of unionization have been linked to lower levels of income inequality, both in the United States and cross‐nationally.…”

Representation in an Era of Political and Economic Inequality: How and When Citizen Engagement Matters

“…We prefer "preference congruence" because the term "responsiveness" implies a causal directionality that we do not address. 17 APSA 2004;Franko, Kelly, and Witko 2016;Hacker and Pierson 2010;Leighley and Nagler 2014;Lijphart 1997;Schlozman, Verba, and Brady 2012;Skocpol 2004;Verba 2003;Brady 1995. 18 Bartels 2016;Ellis 2012;Franko, Kelly and Witko 20164;Gilens 2009Gilens , 2012Jacobs and Page 2005;Shapiro 2011.…”