Why People Decide to Participate in State Politics

• Date: 01 March 2011
• Published date: 01 March 2011
• Author: Andrea McAtee,Jennifer Wolak
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912909343581
• Subject Matter: Articles

Political Research Quarterly
64(1) 45 –58
Why People Decide to Participate
© 2011 University of Utah
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
in State Politics
DOI: 10.1177/1065912909343581
http://prq.sagepub.com
Andrea McAtee1 and Jennifer Wolak2
Abstract
Many have investigated who participates in politics and why they choose to do so. Here, the authors consider
where people choose to participate. Using survey data from the American Citizen Participation Study, the authors
investigate why people choose to participate in state politics versus local or national venues. If the decision of where
to participate is resource driven, then people will engage in state politics for the same reasons they participate in
politics generally. But if participatory choices reflect one’s motivation and incentives for action, then the reasons to
engage in state politics will be unique, connected to individual interest and political environments.
Keywords
political participation, state politics
When people turn out to vote in any given election, they
states, dependent on factors such as the strength of state
might be propelled by a number of motives: personal rea-
party organizations, political and social diversity, and the
sons, such as a sense of duty; local factors, such as mobi-
quality of policy representation within states. We also
lization efforts by neighbors; state level effects, such as
explore whether the reasons people participate at the state
the ease of registration; or national factors, such as resid-
level mirror the roots of political action at the local and
ing in a battleground state. Thus, the act of voting can
national level, considering how individual-level factors,
reflect incentives from different levels in a federal sys-
such as party contact, political interest, and efficacy, dif-
tem. However, outside of the decision to vote or not,
ferentially affect engagement at each level.
other forms of action have more specific outlets. One
Many have studied the roots of participation gener-
may run for local office, donate to a state-level contest, or
ally, but little is known about whether there is anything
volunteer for a national campaign. Why do people choose
distinctive about the decision to participate in state poli-
to engage in one level of government versus another?
tics. Do the same factors that motivate individuals to
It is possible that the choices people make about where
get involved with their school boards and city councils
to invest their political energies hinge on personalized
encourage them to care about their state legislators and
considerations, whereby those with more resources
executive offices? By looking at the effects of state politi-
(Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995) and more interest
cal environments, we can see whether people are respon-
(Rosenstone and Hansen 1993) participate in whatever
sive to the composition and outcomes of state governments
outlets are available. If the reasons that propel people to
or if their participation rests on incentives rooted in other
engage in state politics are similar across activities, then
levels of government or within individuals.
it suggests that levels of state participation will tend to be
Such an approach is also instructive in understanding
insensitive to the performance of state government. Alter-
the degree to which state politics is distinct from national
nately, the incentives for participating in state politics
politics in the eyes of citizens. While the design of gov-
may be unique and rest not only within individuals but
ernment demarcates separate roles and responsibilities to
also within the environments they inhabit. The decision
to participate at the state level could be a function of
1
mobilization efforts by state parties or the composition of
University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA
2University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA
state government. If this is the case, it suggests that citi-
zens make strategic decisions to participate in response to
Corresponding Author:
the cues they encounter within their environment.
Jennifer Wolak, Department of Political Science, University of
Colorado at Boulder, 136 Ketchum, 333 UCB, Boulder,
We consider whether levels of participation in state
Colorado 80309-0333
politics are responsive to the unique environments of
E-mail: wolakj@colorado.edu

---

46
Political Research Quarterly 64(1)
the national government and state governments, Key (1956)
races (Caldeira and Patterson 1982; Hogan 1999; Jackson
questions whether state politics can remain autonomous
and Carsey 2007; Lau and Pomper 2004; Patterson and
in the face of nationalizing forces, such as presidential
Caldeira 1983). Turnout also climbs in battleground states
elections. Others have questioned whether presidential
where the intensity of presidential campaign efforts is
evaluations ultimately drive gubernatorial elections (i.e.,
greater (Hill and McKee 2005), although the effects are
Atkeson and Partin 1995; Carsey and Wright 1998).
not absolute for all elections and all citizens (Gimpel,
Regarding the decision to participate in state politics,
Kaufman, and Pearson-Merkowitz 2007; Wolak 2006).
we investigate whether citizens are responsive to the insti-
Policy issues can also generate citizen action, where states
tutions, outcomes, and incentives uni que to their state
with more initiatives on the ballot have higher levels of
environments.
voter turnout (Smith 2001; Tolbert, Grummel, and Smith
Understanding why people participate in state politics
2001; Tolbert, McNeal, and Smith 2003; Tolbert and Smith
also has normative value. Higher civic participation has
2005). Apart from campaign effects, states also have the
been linked to greater policy innovation and improve-
ability to promote turnout through voting regulations. Res-
ments in government performance (Knack 2002; Putnam
trictive voter registration rules can depress turnout in states
2000; Rice and Sumberg 1997). Low political participa-
(Mitchell and Wlezien 1995; Wolfinger and Rosenstone
tion can also be costly. Not all are equally likely to par-
1980), while states have the potential to increase turnout
ticipate in politics, and participants and nonparticipants
through innovations such as Motor Voter, vote by mail,
often have different interests (Verba 2003; Verba, Schloz-
and early voting (Berinsky, Burns, and Traugott 2001;
man, and Brady 1995). These inequalities raise concerns
Gronke, Galanes-Rosenbaum, and Miller 2007; Knack
about the quality of representation. Members of Congress
1995; Rhine 1995).1
tend to respond more to the ideological preferences of
These studies highlight that state contexts can influ-
voters than to those of nonvoters (Griffin and Newman
ence whether people choose to visit their polling place or
2005) and are more likely to direct federal funds to areas
stay home on Election Day. Yet these studies are also
of their district whose residents vote at higher rates
limited in that they focus on one kind of participation,
(Martin 2003). At the state level, levels of voter turnout
voting, during a particular time period, campaign sea-
among those of lower socioeconomic status are related to
sons. It is also important to study why people participate
state spending on welfare (Hill and Leighley 1992). In
in state politics in ways outside of voting. Among the
this way, patterns of participation are connected to the
ways people can participate in politics, voting is in many
composition and outputs of government.
ways a unique act. One can do it only on certain days. It
often requires some term of residency to vote in a particu-
The Explanations for
lar locale, and in most states, one must formally register
to vote in advance of the election. Other political acts,
Participation in State Politics
such as writing a letter or contacting a public official,
When forming political opinions, citizens distinguish
however, present fewer formal hurdles and are available
between the different responsibilities of government at
to citizens outside of campaign seasons. In addition, a
each level (Arceneaux 2006) and evaluate each level of
focus on turnout in state elections concentrates attention
government according to distinct criteria (Jennings 1998;
on election-specific features, such as mobilization and
Roeder 1994). But it is unclear whether political actions
campaign effects. While clearly important, this focus
also have distinct roots depending on whether their target
means that less attention has been given to how unique
is national, state, or local. While prior research has con-
features of states themselves, such as party organizations
sidered the roots of action at the local level or at the
or political diversity, contribute to people’s decision to
national level, less is known about why people choose to
participate in politics. Finally, voting is distinctive among
participate in state-level campaigns and mobilize over
political acts. Studies of survey data show that the rea-
state policy issues. To the extent to which people have
sons people choose to vote are different than reasons they
considered the state-specific attributes of political action,
choose to participate otherwise (Verba, Schlozman, and
the focus has been on turnout and on the contribution of
Brady 1995).
state campaigns and electoral rules on levels...