Date: 2023-01-01

Creator: Ryan Supple

Access: Open access

This thesis examines the complex relationship between religiosity and voting behavior in the United States. In a country where religion has diminished in importance over time, it seems rather fascinating that it still plays such a large role in the inner-workings of American politics. Chapter One analyzes the varying ways in which scholars have approached emergent political trends between religious groups, particularly with regards to political parties, voting behavior, and government representation. Chapter Two extends this analysis to the American National Election Studies (ANES), a national survey distributed to random samples of Americans during election seasons. The information from the ANES facilitated a more in-depth analysis of how individuals with varying levels of affiliations have interacted with politics, such as ideologies, affiliations, and feelings towards religiously salient political issues. Lastly, Chapter 3 focuses on college-aged students, using both the UCLA's CIRP Freshman Survey and the Bowdoin College Polar Poll, to evaluate how America's educated youth are interacting with politics. These data allowed for a more proper investigation into how a historically unreligious portion of the population interact with religion today, and how this may affect America's religious climate in the future, as students eventually grow into educated professionals and further immerse themselves into politics. Ultimately, this paper suggests that a growing political polarity has coincided with polarization in religion, with two coalitions-- a religious and non religious one moving in opposite directions, thus amounting to further divisions and misunderstandings between the American public.

Date: 2021-01-01

Creator: Michael Borecki

Access: Open access

Small donors have provided an increased share of total campaign contributions in the 2016, 2018, and 2020 U.S. federal election cycles, including about $3 billion of the $14.4 billion raised in 2020. Campaign funding is still dominated by an influential set of large donors, but small donations may be the basis for an effective response to the disproportionate amount of “big money” in politics. This study investigates whether candidates who are more extreme perform better with small donors, and then examines the impact of small donations and overall funding on election results. These analyses were performed using linear sum-of-squares regression models. The results in Chapter 2 show that candidates who are more politically-extreme receive more of their funding from small donations, but perform worse in general elections when fundraising is equal. Chapter 3 shows that small donations do not have an impact on candidate performance in general elections more generally, but candidates who outraise their opponent also outperform relative to the district’s partisan lean. However, that effect disappears when looking only at elections decided by less than 10 percent of the vote. These results suggest that small donors are more likely to support candidates who are more politically polarized, but the effects of small donors on the makeup of Congress is marginal at best, at least as far as general election outcomes are concerned. The project concludes by considering reform proposals that seek to broaden the pool of Americans who donate small sums to political candidates.