Attitudes toward Electoral Accountability

Goal

The goal of this module is to explore attitudes about government accountability and their relationship to political participation in the U.S. Crosstabulation will be used.

Concept

Accountability is a foundation of democratic principles. Elected representatives are held accountable to their constituents through the electoral process; legislators who do not appear to represent the best interests of their constituents may find it difficult to be re-elected. Citizens who believe that representatives can be held accountable through elections may be more likely to participate in the political process.

Examples of research questions about electoral accountability:

  • Are beliefs about electoral accountability related to beliefs about say in government?
  • Are people who believe that elections increase accountability for voters more likely keep up with government activity and public affairs?
  • How many people believe government officials care about what they think?
  • Are people who believe that elections increase accountability for voters more likely to vote?

This exercise will use the 1998 American National Election Study. This study is part of a time-series collection of national surveys fielded continuously since 1952. The ANES, originally started in 1948, is the oldest continuous series of survey data investigating electoral behavior and attitudes in the United States. The focus of the survey includes voter perceptions of the major political parties, the candidates, national and international issues, and of the importance of the election. The election studies are also designed to provide data on Americans' social backgrounds, enduring political predispositions, social and political values, perceptions and evaluations of groups and candidates, opinions on questions of public policy, and participation in political life.

This exercise will use the following variables:

  • People do not have say in government (V980525)
  • Election makes government pay attention to what people think (V980522)
  • Follow government and public affairs (V980340)
  • Public officials do not care (V980524)
  • Respondent voted in the 1998 Election (V980303)

Electoral Accountability

Respondents were asked to respond to the following statement: "Elections make the government pay attention to what the people think" (V98052). Response choices were "a good deal," "some," and "not much." We recoded this variable to exclude the "don't know," "refused," and "not ascertained" (responses 8 and 9). We also reversed the order of response options so that the values increased in accordance with the sentiment. Thus, the "not much" response is coded as "1," "some" is coded as "2," and "a good deal" is coded as "3." The new variable is called "ELECTACCT". What percentage of respondents believes elections make government officials pay attention to what people think "a good deal?"

Civic Awareness

Now consider whether or not citizens follow what's going on in government and public affairs (V980340). Respondents were asked how much they "follow what's going on in government and public affairs." Response choices were: "most of the time," "some of the time," "only now and then," and "hardly at all." There are no missing cases. We recoded the variable into a three-category variable by combining the latter two categories from the original variable and, again, reordered the response options such that lower values represent less attention to government and public affairs. The new variable is "FOLLOWGOVT". How many respondents follow what's going on in government and public affairs "some of the time?"

Now look at the crosstabulation of ELECTACCT and FOLLOWGOVT. What percentage of the respondents who follow what's going on in government and public affairs "most of the time" believes that elections make the government pay attention to what the people think "a good deal" (ELECTACCT)?

Having a Say

Respondents were asked to respond to the following (V980525): "People like me do not have say in government." Response choices were "disagree strongly," "disagree somewhat," "neither agree nor disagree," "agree somewhat," and "agree strongly." We recoded the variable into three categories: "don't have a say" (1), "not sure" (2), and "have say" (3). Missing cases were deleted. Look at the distribution of the new variable, "HAVESAY." What percentage of respondents believes that people have a say in government?

Consider the relationship between beliefs about having a say in government and about electoral accountability. What percentage of those who believe they have a say in government also believe that elections make the government pay attention to what people think?

Government Receptiveness

Respondents were also asked to react to the statement: "Public officials don't care much for what people like me think." Response choices were "disagree strongly," "disagree somewhat," "neither agree nor disagree," "agree somewhat," and "agree strongly." We recoded the variable into three categories: "don't care" (1), "not sure" (2), and "care" (3). Missing cases were deleted. We called the new variable "NOCARE."

Consider the crosstab of ELECTACCT by NOCARE. What percentage of respondents who feel that public officials do not care also feel that elections do not have much of an effect in making government pay attention? Looking at the table as a whole, how do the results compare to the table generated by the crosstab of ELECTACCT by HAVESAY?

Voting

Finally, think about how perceptions about government may be associated with voting behavior. Respondents were asked if they had voted in the 1998 presidential election (v980303). We recoded the variable so that those who did not vote were coded as "0" and those who voted were coded as "1" (excluding missing data and those who refused to respond) and called the new variable "VOTE."

Look at the crosstab of VOTE by ELECTACCT. What percentage of all respondents voted? Is a higher level of perceived electoral accountability associated with a higher likelihood of voting?

Think about your answers to the application questions before you click through the interpretation guide for help in answering them.

  • What percentage of respondents believes that elections make government officials pay attention to what people think "a good deal?"
  • How many respondents follow what's going on in government and public affairs "some of the time?"
  • What percentage of the respondents who follow what's going on in government and public affairs "most of the time" believes that elections make the government pay attention to what the people think "a good deal"?
  • What percentage of respondents believes that people have a say in government?
  • What percentage of those who believe they have a say in government also believe that elections make the government pay attention to what people think?
  • What percentage of respondents who believe that public officials do not care about people also feel that elections do not have much of an effect in making government pay attention? Looking at the table as a whole, how do the results compare to the table generated by the crosstab of ELECTACCT by HAVESAY?
  • What percentage of all respondents voted? Is a higher level of perceived electoral accountability associated with a higher likelihood of voting?

Interpretation

Things to think about in interpreting the results:

  • It is important to look at the amount of missing data in each relationship and think about the ways in which that might affect the generalizability of the results. In general, results from this dataset should be fairly representative of the American population because it is a national probability sample and weights are used in the analyses.
  • Reading the results: the numbers in each cell of the crosstabulation tables show the percent of the people who fall into the overlapping categories, followed by the actual number of people that represents in this sample. The coloring in the tables demonstrates how the observed numbers in each cell compares to the expected number if there were no association between the two variables. The accompanying bar charts display the patterns visually as well.
  • The use of column percentages, as shown in these tables, allows for the comparison of answers to the "outcome" of interest across values of the grouping variable. For example, 58.6% of respondents who feel that elections cause government to pay a good deal of attention to people voted in the 1998 election, compared to 37.9% of respondents who disagree.
  • Weights (mathematical formulas) are often used to adjust the sample proportions, usually by race, sex, or age, to more closely match those of the general population. The analyses in this guide used weights to increase the generalizability of the findings, so the resulting tables are meant to reflect the relationships we would expect to see in the general population.

The analyses show the following:

  • Almost half of respondents (45.6%) believe that elections do cause the government to pay a good deal of attention to the people. Only 12.7% believe that government does not pay much attention to people.
  • A little more than one-third of respondents (471) follow what's going on "some of the time." This was the modal (most frequent) response among the three response categories.
  • 61.2% of respondents who follow what's going on in government and public affairs "most of the time" believe that elections make the government pay "a good deal" of attention to what people think. Respondents who follow government and public affairs only some of the time or less are less likely to hold a similar viewpoint with regard to electoral accountability.
  • Almost half of respondents (45.7%) believe that they have a say in government, which is virtually identical to the percentage who believe that elections cause government to pay a good deal of attention to people. However, a nearly equal percentage of respondents (42.3%) believe that people do not have a say in government.
  • Almost three-fifths of respondents (59.1%) who believe that people have a say in government also feel that elections make the government pay attention to the people. As in the previous table, this is the modal response among this group of respondents and the other two groups (those who are not sure if people have a say and those who believe that people do not have a say) are less likely to agree that elections cause government to pay a good deal of attention to people.
  • Only 16.8% of respondents who feel that the public officials do not care about people also feel that elections do not have much effect in causing government to pay attention to people. The remaining 83.2% of this group of respondents (those who feel public officials do not care about people) believe that elections have at least some, if not a good deal of impact in making government pay attention to people. In comparing this table to the previous table, the patterns are very similar. We note that both tables feature dark red cells in the top left and bottom right corners and dark blue in the top left and bottom right corners. This suggests that the relationship between the electoral accountability variable and HAVESAY and NOCARE are fairly similar.
  • Looking at the row totals column, we see that 52.2% of all respondents claim to have voted in the 1998 election. The turnout rate was even higher (58.6%) among those who believe that elections cause government to pay "a good deal" of attention to people. Given that the majority of the remaining respondents did not claim to have voted in 1998, it seems that higher perceived electoral accountability is associated with a higher likelihood of voting in 1998.

Summary

The goal of this exercise was to determine whether or not voters believe elections hold elected officials accountable. People who felt they had a say in government tended to believe in electoral accountability. Moreover, respondents who reported that they keep up to date on government affairs at least "some of the time" were more likely to believe in electoral accountability than less informed respondents. Finally, people who said they believe that elections make the government pay attention were more likely to report voting in the 1998 election.

CITATION: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. Attitudes toward Electoral Accountability: A Data-Driven Learning Guide. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2009-04-16. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3886/electcompacc

Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.