Liberty Exposé: Transactional Voting In The 2020 Presidential Election? Probably Not Much

Brendan Smialowski / AFP

In the midst of a historic presidential election that promises record-level voter turnout, one may very well wonder what sorts of motivating factors are getting so many folks to cast their ballots this year, both by mail and in-person. Are voters thinking “transactionally” and in terms of the immediate personal gain that they hope their candidate of choice will furnish them? Or are they motivated by some perceived national interest, broader value-system, or allegiance to the candidates themselves? 

The term “transactional” calls for further specificity. A transactional vote is one that is cast with the aim of acquiring some sort of concrete personal interest, whether that interest be economic or political. This would include voters motivated by a range of otherwise disparate concerns. Votes motivated by the promise of lower taxes, healthcare reform, more judge nominations that reflect their values, or money for social services are all transactional because they aim at the acquisition of a particular good. 

By contrast, voters may be motivated by principles, systemic concerns, broader communal interests, or affinity for a candidate’s personality. While the line demarcating these motivations from transactional ones is not always clear-cut, the general difference in these “non-transactional” cases is that the direct benefit to the voter is either too general or unrelated to a voter’s immediate interests to warrant a transaction. 

For instance, a candidate who votes for a Republican candidate because that candidate embodies his or her conservative principles may very well believe that direct personal benefits will come as a result; however, if the real draw is the candidate’s principles, then a potential transactional benefit probably looms more like a general possibility of the indeterminate future than an immediate expectation with a timestamp. The voter may continue to vote Republican in the belief that Republicans command a more compelling vision and thus will generate more benefits in the long-run, but the voter’s choice each election season is not so elastic that it hinges on any particular transactional benefit. Non-transactional scenarios of this sort likely account for a lot of the voter loyalty that we see, despite the fact that immediate promises are often left unfulfilled. 

So what sort of voter logic will prevail in the 2020 presidential election? At a first glance, the case for a transactionally oriented election appears weak given the smaller number of undecided voters this year (3% compared to around 13% in 2016), as these would be the most likely to feel uncommitted to either candidate based on principle, vision, or personality. With less of a stake in non-transactional concerns (at least to the point that they remain sufficiently uncertain to vote one way or the other), such voters might remain relatively open to transactional appeals from either side of the aisle. However, their decreasing numbers suggest that this type of “middle of the road” transactional thinking will not figure prominently this election. 

Among the remaining 97% of voters, the logic is more likely to be non-transactional for two reasons. First, Trump’s favorability since 2016 remains relatively stable, despite mixed follow-through on campaign promises. This stability, compounded by the unwavering support of most of Trump’s supporters, suggests that as a general rule, support for Trump remains fairly inelastic and therefore less liable to transactional thinking. 

Second, and perhaps more importantly, Trump’s personality, and not his programmatic expectations, seems to be the biggest factor in determining whether voters approve of him or not. 

A recent Pew study reveals quite a bit on this front. Among Trump’s supporters, 66% continue to strongly support him. This level of enthusiasm clearly outpaces enthusiasm for Biden, whose strong supporters constitute 46% of his total supporters. Furthermore, the “Trump variable” seems to factor heavily in the considerations of both camps. 71% of Trump voters characterize their vote as a vote for Trump, whereas only 36% of Biden voters describe their choices as votes for Biden. Rather, a clear majority of Biden voters (63%) prefer to characterize their votes as being against Trump. Taken together, these figures suggest that approval or disapproval of Trump seems to constitute the primary variable in this election. 

Furthermore, if we dig into the “Trump variable” and consider how it relates to voter opinion, evidence seems to suggest (as least as of 2018) that Trump’s personality plays a much larger role than his policies in determining both approval and disapproval. 

Among those that view Trump approvingly, 60% cite his approach or personality as the main reason, with only 20% citing his policies and values, and 3% citing his opposition to Democrats. Among those with concerns about Trump’s performance as president, 29% are most concerned about his conduct and personality, and a combined 28% are worried about either his dishonesty, discriminatory outlook, or perceived lack of care for common people (versus 24% who worry most about his policies). If the general character of these results continues to hold in 2020, then voters who are thinking primarily in policy terms (and therefore, potentially in a transactional way) will be in the minority. Voters will have their approval or disapproval of Trump’s ethos in mind more than anything else.