From an Honored Value to a Harmful Choice

Abstract

This article analyzes how Barack Obama and Mitt Romney discussed electoral participation in campaign 2012 and compares their statements to those made by presidential nominees over the past 16 elections. Findings show that, overall, presidential candidates have depicted voting as a choice (not a right, duty, or value) and as harmful and divisive (as opposed to helpful or honorable). The data also reveal significant differences over the years, as candidates in the 1950s and 1960s were more likely to talk about voting as a value than transpires today and as candidates prior to the 1980s largely refrained from describing voting as a negative act. The article concludes by addressing how the campaign process has sharpened and politicized discussions of electoral participation over the years and what these shifts might mean for the contemporary campaign context.

Keywords

voters American presidential campaigns mass media elections

We must see, as we do our civic duty, that not only do we vote but that everybody is qualified to vote, that everybody registers, and everybody goes to the polls in November. Here is a task not only for the Republican National Committee, for the women’s organizations, for the citizens’ organizations, for the so-called Youth for Eisenhower—everybody that bears this message in his heart must carry it to the country. In that way we will win. (Eisenhower, 1956)

But tonight I’d ask a simple question: If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama, shouldn’t you feel that way now that he’s President Obama? You know there’s something wrong with the kind of job he’s done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him. (Romney, 2012)

Time was, presidential candidates addressed their nominating conventions with a sentimental approach to electoral participation. In his 1956 acceptance address, for instance, incumbent President Dwight Eisenhower spoke of voting as a “civic duty” that everyone should “do” and be “qualified to” do. Not only should “we” vote, he elaborated to his audience, but also “see” registration and mobilization as part of “our” political responsibility. In underscoring this point, he invited a set of groups—ranging from the Republican National Committee, to women’s organizations, to citizens’ organizations, to Youth for Eisenhower—to “bear the message” of voting in their hearts and to “carry it to the country.” If these groups could help increase registration numbers across the country, Eisenhower pronounced, “we will win.”

Fifty-six years later, another Republican nominee discussed the notion of electoral participation and its promise differently. In his convention address, former governor Mitt Romney used the term “voted” to return his audience to Election Day 2008, to underscore how casting a ballot for Barack Obama was a choice that millions of citizens were eager to make, and then to give his audience permission to feel differently about that selection in the late summer of 2012. For Romney, the word “voted” was not a springboard to a discussion of how he and his audience could win together; it was a discouraging reminder (carefully worded as it was) of a disappointing past decision.

That a speech delivered in 2012 featured a more skeptical take on political life than one from 1956 would not surprise political scholars familiar with the tone of presidential discourse in the United States (Dionne, 1992; Hart, 2000; Herbst, 2010). And that the role of political participation was not treated as delicately in the second decade of the 21st century as it was following the Second World War would not surprise media scholars familiar with portrayals of citizens in public discourse (Jarvis & Han, 2011; Lewis, Inthorn, & Wahl-Jorgensen, 2005). And yet, these two treatments of the terms of electoral participation raise fundamental questions. How have presidential candidates talked about the vote, voters, and voting? Have such discussions changed over time? What are some possible implications of such depictions?

These questions merit attention, as voting in presidential elections represents citizens’ “most striking intervention in American politics” where “scattered millions of the electorate come together symbolically to decide their political future” and vest the new president with “democratic legitimacy” (Pomper, 1968, pp. 99, 122). While political scholars have theorized electoral participation in great detail, communication scholars have yet to track how elite political voices invite people to think about it. Prior works document how presidential candidates play a powerful role in shaping the conversation surrounding pivotal democratic keywords like “vote,” “voter,” and “voting” (Hart, Jarvis, Jennings, & Smith-Howell, 2005). To learn more about how audiences have been encouraged to think about electoral participation, this article examines how candidates have discussed the keywords of voting in their campaign addresses over a 64-year time period (1948–2012).

Voting as a Political Act

The ballot holds an “honored place” in democratic ideology (Pomper, 1968, p. 4). Intriguingly, however, political scholars have expressed varying degrees of support for it. There are at least three schools of thought surrounding the role and influence of voting in a polity.

First, consider the statements by those who have praised electoral participation. Scholars in this camp have contend that elections are the great public ceremonies of American life (Pomper, 1968) and the most important public referents of democracy (Crewe, 1981). For democratic observers, these events have been applauded for how they reveal important historical data about political cultures, expose power relations, and unmask the qualitative nature of the experience of self-rule (Crewe, 1981). For citizens participating in them, elections have been credited with more tangible benefits, including preventing tyranny, confirming authority, selecting and empowering representatives, allowing the will of the people to be articulated, preventing selfish interests from using the government to exploit others, promoting the growth of human potential, and fostering the development of viable communities (Katz, 1997, p. 100).

Scholars in this group have also praised the political and symbolic aspects of casting a ballot. They have proclaimed that the vote is the most important activity in the political engagement domain (Zukin, Keeter, Andolina, Jenkins, & Delli Carpini, 2006), the primary check on elite greed (Macedo et al., 2005), and the most critical of political decisions in the United States (Bone & Ranney, 1971). They have also argued that the vote is the most basic symbol of democracy (Edelman, 1964), the most fundamental of democratic rights (Crewe, 1981), and the quintessential symbol of community membership (Katz, 1997). These scholars maintain that the right to vote often results from a long and sometimes violent fight and should be viewed as “one of the ultimate prizes in the struggle for freedom from tyranny, oppression, and autocracy” (Dudley & Shiraev, 2008, p. 6). As Katz (1997) explains, “No country allows all adults to vote, and examination of the expansion of the right of suffrage provides a useful vehicle for understanding the restrictions that remain” (p. 217).

A second group of researchers has been more critical of electoral participation. Some authors in this cohort have critiqued voters for possessing low levels of political information and for more closely resembling manipulated subjects than educated, autonomous actors (Campbell, Converse, Miller, & Stokes, 1960; Shenkman, 2008). Others have placed a shaper point on this concern, warning that an “excess of democracy” can override the ability of those with more “expertise, seniority, experience, and special talents” to make informed decisions for a polity (Huntington, 1968, p. 113). Still others have insisted that “people should not vote expecting to change outcomes, certainly not in national elections in a democracy the size of the United States” because “citizens would be better off playing the lottery and using their winnings (if any) to influence the political process” (see Crigler, Just, & McCaffrey, 2004, p. 231).

A third set of political scientists acknowledge the limitations of electoral participation but insist that it, nevertheless, merits respect. For instance, Key (1965) cautioned against promoting a perspective that mocked voters, arguing that the perceptions political elites hold of the electorate form the “input” to an “echo chamber” that invariably can “determine the nature of the voice of the people” (p. 7). The practice of holding voters in low regard, he feared, could influence how elites approach governance, shape how they appeal to citizens, and influence the public’s understanding of its power in the system. Building on Key’s perspective, Pomper (1968) believed “if elections are widely considered dangerous or meaningless, actions may follow to restrict their importance and to minimize the power of ordinary citizens” (p. 15). Decades later, Crigler, Just, and McCaffrey (2004) offered another reason to respect voters, suggesting that the very participatory nature of American democracy may promote stability. They suggested “maybe we have avoided ‘political chaos’ because of participation” for “when people are hopeful and feel engaged and participatory in a society they are less, not more, likely to be insurrectionary” as “the greatest periods of unrest in our nation’s history have come when people or groups have felt disempowered, disrespected, disenfranchised” (p. 233). A conclusion shared by this group is that even if they are imperfect, elections serve as a precondition for political stability and as a mechanism for safeguarding the rights of citizens against political elites.

Voting as a Political Keyword

To learn more about how candidates have discussed voting, this article examines the language of electoral participation as political keywords—plain, often taken-for-granted terms that, when studied over time and circumstance, reveal data about cultural norms, civic values, and historical trends (Hart et al., 2005; Jarvis, 2005; Williams, 1976). Tracking how ordinary words that are close to everyday politics are used offers a glimpse into what connotations have been emphasized, made public, and repeated over the years. This type of inquiry cannot speak to the effects of such terms on audiences directly, but it can allow insight into how people are invited to make sense of their lives together as the meanings of terms are “necessarily a function of the interaction of their past and present usages” in a rhetorical culture (Condit & Lucaites, 1993, p. 218).

This project traces how the key terms of electoral participation—“vote,” “voter,” and “voting”—have been employed by presidential candidates over 17 election cycles. This approach rests on a set of previously outlined assumptions about political language (Jarvis, 2005). First, citizens come to know politics through discourse, and so the visibility and attractiveness of political keywords is consequential (Edelman, 1964, 1977). Second, citizen discourse is led, but not fully determined, by elite discourse, and so the language that presidential nominees use during campaigns holds cues for understanding how people think about political life (Converse, 1964; Zaller, 1992). Third, political keywords have been shown to function as powerful shortcuts in modern life and to have important psychological effects on citizens (Pennebaker, Mehl, & Niederhoffer, 2003). Fourth, the meanings of political keywords shift with time, as words can become broader, narrower, or may change entirely (and thus a rich understanding of them requires longitudinal analyses; see Fromkin & Rodman, 1974).

Method

To track how presidential candidates discussed electoral participation, we conducted a content analysis of the acceptance addresses delivered by the Democratic and Republican Party nominees to their national conventions between 1948 and 2012. Convention addresses are regarded as focal electoral moments, as they represent the most public speeches of the campaigns, they are heavily scrutinized by the media, they reveal candidates’ general election messages, and they feature message units that are often repeated in subsequent addresses (Jarvis, 2001; Powell & Cowart, 2013; Trent & Friedenberg, 2008). While the specific findings of these convention addresses cannot be generalized to all presidential candidate communications, focusing on these speeches allows us to track how the keywords of electoral participation are discussed over time.

All 34 speeches delivered at the Democratic and Republican conventions between 1948 and 2012 were searched for the key terms of electoral participation (Jarvis & Han, 2011). This step yielded 102 terms of interest, including “vote,” “votes,” and “voted” (n = 86); “voter” and “voters” (n = 12); and “voting” (n = 4). These terms were analyzed by employing theoretically derived variables used in related projects on political keywords (Hart et al., 2005) and analyses of how electoral participation has been framed in the news (Jarvis & Han, 2011). Specifically, each keyword was coded for the following variables: the assumption of electoral participation (was it depicted as a right, a duty, a value, a choice, or unclear); the frame of electoral participation (was it portrayed as connected to issues, as a game, or unclear); the context of electoral participation (was it represented as positive, negative, or neutral/unclear); the role of electoral participation (were voters illustrated as part of the solution in American life, as part of the problem, or unclear); the potency of electoral participation (were voters characterized as actors, recipients of action, or unclear); and the agent of electoral participation (who was engaged in the act of voting—elites, citizens, or other). Additionally, we recorded if the word was used as a noun, verb, or adjective (grammar); uttered by a Democrat or Republican (party); used by a winning or losing candidate (outcome); and used in a distinct political era (Era One: 1948–1968; Era Two: 1969–1979; Era Three: 1980–1996; Era Four: 1997–2012—era [see Hart, 2000; Jarvis, 2005]).

We employed the message unit surrounding each keyword as our unit of analysis (Neuendorf, 2002). We also used the consensus approach to maintain the integrity of the coding process (largely to be sensitive to the complexities of longitudinal research; see Benoit, Blaney, & Pier, 2000; Burgoon, Pfau, & Birk, 1995). All 102 message units were coded by both authors independently and then units were discussed to reach agreement on coding decisions. Although time-consuming, Benoit and colleagues (2000) note distinct advantages to discussing items and reaching consensus on all coding decisions, including 100% agreement on all texts, increased ease of interpretation derived from the authors’ familiarity with the messages, and richer understandings of the findings generated through discussing disagreements.

Findings

After conducting quantitative and qualitative analyses, we found both general and situational patterns in how these terms have been used. To begin, when all of the data from 1948 to 2012 are analyzed together, the following themes emerged (see Table 1, “Overall” column).

Table 1.

Keywords in Presidential Addresses (in percentages).

	Overall	Era One: 1948–1968	Era Two: 1969–1979	Era Three: 1980–1996	Era Four: 1997–2012
Assumption
Voting as a right	5.9	8.7	6.7	2.6	7.7
Voting as a duty	4.9	13.0	0.0	2.6	3.8
Voting as a value	10.8	21.7	20.0	5.3	3.8
Voting as a choice	73.5	56.5	53.3	86.6	80.8
Unclear	4.9	0.0	20.0	2.6	3.8
Frame
Issues	43.1	26.1	13.3	55.3	57.7
Game	6.9	13.0	6.7	0.0	11.5
Unclear	50.0	60.9	80.0	44.7	30.8
Context
Positive	22.5	34.8	33.3	10.5	23.1
Negative	37.3	13.0	13.3	63.2	34.6
Neutral/unclear	40.2	52.2	53.3	26.3	42.3
Role
Part of the solution	36.3	60.9	60.0	15.8	30.8
Part of the problem	9.8	0.0	0.0	18.4	11.5
Unclear	53.9	39.1	40.0	65.8	57.7
Potency
Actors	57.8	56.5	33.3	60.5	69.2
Recipients of action	10.8	13.0	26.7	0.0	15.4
Unclear	31.4	30.4	40.0	39.5	15.4
Agent
Elites	33.3	26.1	13.3	42.1	38.5
Citizens	62.7	73.9	86.7	50.0	57.7
Other	3.9	0.0	0.0	7.9	3.8
Grammar
Noun	42.2	43.5	86.7	36.8	23.1
Verb	53.9	52.2	6.7	60.5	73.1
Adjective	3.9	4.3	6.7	2.6	3.8
Word
Vote(s)(d)	84.3	87.0	66.7	86.8	88.5
Voter(s)	11.8	0.0	33.3	13.2	7.7
Voting	3.9	13.0	0.0	0.0	3.8

Voting has been discussed as a choice. Presidential candidates were more likely to discuss electoral participation in terms of making a decision (73.5%) than to depict it as a right (5.9%), a duty (4.9%), or a value (10.8%—assumptions variable). When these latter three categories are combined, the data show that candidates spoke of voting in terms of a virtuous civic activity just 21.6% of the time.

Voting has been discussed as an action. Consistent with their proclivity to discuss voting as a choice, candidates were more likely to talk about it as a verb (53.9%) than as a noun (42.2%) or as an adjective (3.9%—grammar variable). They also described voters as actors (57.8%) more often than as recipients of action (10.8%—potency variable).

Voting has been discussed as a citizen activity. Candidates were more likely to talk about electoral participation as something that everyday people do (62.7%) than as an endeavor of elites (33.3%—agent variable).

Voting has been discussed as connected to issues. Given the news media’s tendency to represent campaigns as games, we tracked how often candidates discussed electoral participation in terms of issues or strategies. The data show that 41.3% of the time they connected issues to voting, 6.9% of the time they associated it with a game, with 50.0% of the mentions unclear for this variable (frame variable).

Voting has been discussed as harmful. While candidates did not always cast judgment on the context of voting (40.2% of the mentions were neutral/unclear), when they did editorialize the nature of the vote they were more likely to discuss it negatively (37.3%) than positively (22.5%—context variable). Moreover, they were significantly more likely to discuss the harm of voting when depicting it as a verb than when discussing it as a noun (χ² = 9.511, df = 2, p = .009).

Taken together, candidates have talked about electoral participation as a choice, made by citizens, connected to issues, that is more likely to be harmful than helpful (particularly when the choice is discussed as a verb).

When these overall patterns are examined by era and by speaker, distinct situational findings emerge. Indeed, chi-square analyses reveal a set of significant differences across the eras and across winning and losing candidates. Consider how the uses of the terms changed depending upon when they were spoken and what types of candidates uttered them.

Electoral Participation Was Once Depicted as a Value, Right, and Duty

As previewed in the introduction to the article, candidates like Dwight Eisenhower were once prone to connect the terms of electoral participation to key touchstones like civic duty, democratic values, and political rights. A chi-square analysis shows significant differences across the eras, as candidates became less likely to make such statements over the years (χ² =19.31, df = 6, p = .004).¹ Thus, while audiences once heard candidates connecting voting to a fundamental right (as did Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964), they have been more likely to hear candidates linking it to politicized campaign practices (as did Barack Obama in 2012).

Every American has the right to be treated as a person. He should be able to find a job. He should be able to educate his children, he should be able to vote in elections, and he should be judged on his merits as a person. Well, this is the fixed policy and the fixed determination of the Democratic Party and the United States of America. (Johnson, 1964)

Now, our friends at the Republican convention were more than happy to talk about everything they think is wrong with America, but they didn’t have much to say about how they’d make it right. They want your vote, but they don’t want you to know their plan. And that’s because all they have to offer is the same prescription they’ve had for the last thirty years: “Have a surplus? Try a tax cut.” “Deficit too high? Try another.” “Feel a cold coming on? Take two tax cuts, roll back some regulations, and call us in the morning!” (Obama, 2012)

Electoral Participation Was Treated Honorifically Prior to the 1980s

The data also show an increase in the negativity connected to electoral participation over time. The context variable revealed how the electoral keywords were depicted in a more positive light during the early years of the study (χ² = 20.80, df = 6, p = .000). The role variable illustrated how candidates during Eras One and Two never discussed these electoral keywords as “part of the problem” in political life. And, the grammar variable exposed how the noun-to-verb ratio of electoral keywords was much higher during Eras One and Two than in subsequent years; because candidates were more positive about the electoral keywords as nouns (and more critical of them when used as verbs), a greater emphasis on “the vote as an idea” and “voters as central to democracy” contributed to a more positive spin on electoral participation than is often heard today.

Indeed, prior to 1980, it was not uncommon for candidates to praise the very idea of the vote as was done by Harry Truman in 1948 (“differences were settled by a majority vote, as they should be”) and Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964 (“vote by vote, men of both parties have built a solid foundation for our current prosperity”). Candidates also underscored how voting honored both the will of the majority and the rights of the minority, as did Hubert Humphrey in 1968 (“Democracy affords debate, discussion and dissent. But, my fellow Americans, it also requires decision. And we have decided here, not by edict, but by vote; not by force, but by ballot. Majority rule has prevailed but minority rights are preserved”). Moreover, in these earlier years, candidates even discussed how voters deserved to be satisfied with the voting experience, as did Richard Nixon in 1972 (“I feel it very deeply in my heart: Years from now I want you to look back and be able to say that your first vote was one of the best votes you ever cast in your life”).

Nixon’s tone in 1972 is notable because, qualitatively, the terms were treated most carefully during Era Two (1969–1979). Hart, Jarvis, and colleagues (Hart et al., 2005; Jarvis, 2005) have addressed how other political keywords were similarly protected during those turbulent political years. In this study, it is interesting to notice how careful Gerald Ford was with these words while addressing the Republican convention in 1976. In his address, this unelected chief executive—who had just pardoned his predecessor—reminded citizens that a president’s power comes from the people:

A President has immense powers under the Constitution, but all of them ultimately come from the American people and their mandate to him. That is why, tonight, I turn to the American people and ask not only for your prayers, but also for your strength and your support, for your voice and for your vote. I come before you with a two-year record of performance, without your mandate. I offer you a four-year pledge of greater performance with your mandate.

Something wonderful happened to this country of ours the past two years. We all came to realize it on the Fourth of July. Together, out of years of turmoil and tragedy, wars and riots, assassinations and wrongdoing in high places, Americans recaptured the spirit of 1776. We saw again the pioneer vision of our revolutionary founders and our immigrant ancestors. Their vision was of free men and free women enjoying limited government and unlimited opportunity. The mandate I want in 1976 is to make this vision a reality, but it will take the voices and the votes of many more Americans who are not Republicans to make that mandate binding and my mission possible. (Ford, 1976)

Electoral Participation Is Challenged Most Directly by Losing Candidates

Not all candidates who lost their presidential bids were as supportive of voting as was Ford. The data also illustrate that losing candidates were more likely to politicize the keywords of electoral participation than were those who won. Specifically, candidates who went on to lose in the general election were less likely than winners to discuss electoral participation in positive ways (χ² = 9.50, df = 2, p = .009—context variable) and as “part of the solution” in American life (χ² = 6.85, df = 2, p = .033—role variable).

As previewed in the introduction, Mitt Romney’s speech in 2012 offered an example of this trend. Not only did he invite his audience to think of voting for Obama in 2008 as a disappointing act in the snippet at the start of the article, he continued this theme elsewhere in his speech, listing a series of economic problems facing “families,” “elderly moms,” “small businesses,” and “college graduates,” and arguing that “the hope and change America voted for” that people “wanted,” “expected,” and “deserved” had not been realized (Romney, 2012).

Conclusion

This study analyzed how presidential candidates have used the keywords of electoral participation over the past 17 campaigns. The findings show how these terms have become sharpened and politicized over time. Overall, these words have been deployed to suggest that voting is a choice (and not a right, duty, or value), an action (and not an idea), performed by citizens (and not elites), connected to issues (instead of a game), and harmful (instead of helpful). When these patterns are examined over the years, the data reveal how the terms were once more likely to be depicted as a right, duty, and value (particularly during Eras One and Two), were largely discussed in a positive light (prior to 1980), and have been contested most frequently by losing candidates.

These data offer mixed support for scholarly understandings of voting. If one looks just at Eras One and Two, the findings expose some support and respect for electoral participation. If one looks at the overall patterns, however, the critiques advanced by candidates about voting do not match those argued by political scientists. Indeed, while scholars have forwarded fundamental concerns about electoral participation (e.g., scorning low-information voters, warning of an excess of democracy, questioning an individual’s ability to affect electoral outcomes), candidates have been more likely to challenge the political problems created by voting (e.g., choosing the wrong candidate, being duped by cunning elites, supporting faulty programs). These charges uncover how practices of negative campaigning (predominantly after 1980) have not just tarnished how politicians talk about their opponents, but of voters as well.

This longitudinal content analysis has yielded some observations relevant to campaign 2012 that might have been overlooked using different methods. First, Republican candidates, particularly during Eras One and Two (e.g., Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford), were particularly respectful in their depictions of electoral participation. This result might add historical nuance to charges made in campaign 2012 that the Republican Party was “antivoter” (see Weiser & Kasdan, 2012). Second, some of the candidates regarded to be most popular with voters since the 1980s (e.g., Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama) did not use the terms of electoral participation in their speeches uniquely or in ways to identify with the electorates that supported them. Notably, despite his reputation for connecting with the public, Obama’s use of electoral terms in both 2008 and 2012 was no different from the other candidates from Era Three.

As Hart, Jarvis, and colleagues (Hart et al., 2005; Jarvis, 205) have shown, it is often the case that political keywords are at the crossroads of change and stability where certain elite voices promote them and other elite voices challenge them. In this study, all candidate types since 1980 have been prone to politicize the words of voting. When this finding is combined with other analyses of how electoral participation is portrayed in the media (Jarvis & Han, 2011; Lewis et al., 2005) and cuts to civic education in the nation’s schools (Jarvis, Barberena, & Davis, 2007), it is notable that there are few public or curricular forces championing the idea of the vote as a right, duty, or value. Scholarship over the past four decades, then, shows that there are few visible elite voices advocating for this basic symbol of democracy.

While it is not the primary job of presidential candidates to promote the keywords of electoral participation, this analysis shows that they have been running for president while running against the language of voting. Studies on political keywords point to patterns in language use and cannot, on their own, speak to direct effects on public opinion. The data here, though, raise questions about how public discussions of voting may desensitize people from respecting electoral participation (see Key, 1965; Pomper, 1968). Indeed, a discourse that devalues the franchise (a) provides few reminders to citizens that the vote is their most powerful check on elite activity and (b) places limited pressure on political elites to respect the idea of the vote or the will of American voters. As political scholars have argued, this latter possibility is one that could harm voters, today and into the future, far more than it would hurt political elites.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Sharon E. Jarvis, PhD, is an Associate Professor of Communication Studies and Associate Director of the Annette Strauss Institute for Civic Life at the University of Texas at Austin where she teaches and conducts research on political communication, language use and persuasion. She is the author of The Talk of the Party: Political Labels, Symbolic Capital & American Life (Rowman & Littlefield) and a co-author of Political Keywords: Using Language that Uses Us (Oxford University Press).

Soo-Hye Han, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at Kansas State University. Her research focuses on political discourse, civic engagement, and media effects. She teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in political communication, communication theory, and research methods.

References

Benoit

W. L.

Blaney

J. R.

Pier

P. M.

(2000). Acclaiming, attacking and defending: A functional analysis of U.S. nominating convention keynote speeches. Political Communication, 17, 61–84.

Bone

H. A.

Ranney

(1971). Politics and voters (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Burgoon

Pfau

Birk

T. S.

(1995). An inoculation theory explanation for the effects of corporate issue/advocacy advertising campaigns. Communication Research, 22(4), 485–505.

Campbell

Converse

Miller

Stokes

(1960). The American voter. New York, NY: Wiley.

Condit

Lucaites

(1993). Crafting equality: America’s Anglo-African world. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Converse

P. E.

(1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Apter

D. E.

(Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York, NY: Free Press.

Crewe

(1981). Electoral participation. In Butler

Penniman

H. R.

Ranney

(Eds.), Democracy at the polls: A comparative study of competitive national elections (pp. 216–263). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.

Crigler

Just

M. R.

McCaffery

E. J.

(2004). Rethinking the vote. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Dionne

E. J.

(1992). Why Americans hate politics. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

10.

Dudley

Shiraev

(2008). Counting every vote: The most contentious elections in American history. Washington, DC: Potomac Books.

11.

Edelman

(1964). The symbolic uses of politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

12.

Edelman

(1977). Political language. New York, NY: Academic Press.

13.

Eisenhower

(1956, August 22). Acceptance address to Republican National Convention, San Francisco, California.

14.

Ford

(1976, August 19). Acceptance address to Republican National Convention, Kansas City, Missouri.

15.

Fromkin

Rodman

(1974). An introduction to language. New York, NY: Rinehart, Holt and Winston.

16.

Hart

R. P.

(2000). Campaign talk: Why elections are good for us. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

17.

Hart

R. P.

Jarvis

S. E.

Jennings

W. P.

Smith-Howell

(2005). Political keywords: Using language that uses us. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

18.

Herbst

(2010). Rude democracy: Civility and incivility in American politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

19.

Humphrey

(1968, August 29). Acceptance address to Democratic National Convention, Chicago, Illinois.

20.

Huntington

(1968). Political order in changing societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

21.

Jarvis

S. E.

(2001). Campaigning-alone: Partisan and personal language in convention acceptance speeches. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(12), 2152–2171.

22.

Jarvis

S. E.

(2005). Talk of the party: Political labels, symbolic capital & American life. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

23.

Jarvis

S. E.

Barberena

Davis

(2007, May). Civics, not government. Redirecting social studies in the nation’s schools. Research report produced for and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA.

24.

Jarvis

S. E.

Han

(2011). The mobilized voter: Portrayals of electoral participation in print news coverage of campaign 2008. American Behavioral Scientist, 55, 419–436.

25.

Johnson

L. B.

(1964, August 27). Acceptance address to the Democratic National Convention, Atlantic City, New Jersey.

26.

Katz

R. S.

(1997). Democracy and elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

27.

Key

V. O.

(1965). The responsible electorate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

28.

Lewis

Inthorn

Wahl-Jorgensen

(2005). Citizens or consumers? What the media tell us about political participation. London: Open University Press.

29.

Macedo

Alex-Assensoh

Berry

J. M.

Brintnall

Campbell

D. E.

Luis Ricardo Fraga

L. R.

Fung

Galston

W. A.

(2005). Democracy at risk: How political choices undermine citizen participation and what we can do about it. Washington, DC: Brookings.

30.

Neuendorf

K. A.

(2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

31.

Nixon

R. M.

(1972, August 23). Acceptance address to the Republican National Convention, Miami Beach, Florida.

32.

Obama

(2012, September 6). Acceptance address to the Democratic National Convention, Charlotte, North Carolina.

33.

Pennebaker

Mehl

Niederhoffer

(2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547–577.

34.

Pomper

(1968). Elections in America. New York, NY: Dodd, Mead.

35.

Powell

Cowart

(2013). Political campaign communication: Inside and out (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

36.

Romney

(2012, August 30). Acceptance address to Republican National Convention, Tampa, Florida.

37.

Shenkman

(2008). Just how stupid are we? Facing the truth about the American voter. New York, NY: Basic Books.

38.

Trent

Friedenberg

(2008). Political campaign communication: Principles and practices. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

39.

Truman

(1948, July 15). Acceptance address to Democratic National Convention, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

40.

Weiser

Kasdan

(2012, October 28). Voting law changes: Election update. Research report posted to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law: http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/voting_law_changes_election_update/

41.

Williams

(1976). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society. New York, NY: Oxford.

42.

Zaller

(1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

43.

Zukin

Keeter

Andolina

Jenkins

Delli Carpini

M. X.

(2006). A new engagement: Political participation, civic life, and the changing American citizen. New York, NY: Oxford.