Election Outcomes and Demographics 

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 2 The Theory

This chapter explores theories of political behavior and how these theories may be applied to Southwest Virginia. Rational choice theory and historical institutionalism in relation to the decision-making processes of Southwest Virginians will be compared and contrasted. This chapter will highlight how collective decision-making that protects the region’s formal and informal institutions, instead of individual decision-making that protects one’s personal interests, better explain the voting behavior of Southwest Virginians. Southwest Virginians’ brand of national identity and whether that view aids in the isolation of the region and perhaps serves as an explanation for its appearing to the outside world to be racist. This chapter also explores the theory that political behavior reflects the shame the region’s residents hold for their plight and how the residents often deny the existence of their problems and project those problems onto others.
There are several different schools of thought pertaining to decision-making within social theory. Sil explains that “Rational-choice theorists typically assert that all social phenomena — including the formation of rules, institutions, communities, and norms – ultimately can be reduced to the instrumental behavior of strategic individual actors.”⁴⁷ Chong defines rational choice in the context of this theory as “choosing the course of action that maximizes one’s expected utility.”⁴⁸ Research cited by Chong indicates that voters tend to make electoral decisions not based on their own monetary self-interests but rather on their understanding of national economic interests and “long-standing values.”⁴⁹ In addition, research findings indicate that political attitudes are formed long before one becomes politically active.⁵⁰ It is recognized that conforming to a group, even when conformance may not serve the individual’s best interest, is often preferable to being a non-conformist.⁵¹ It would appear that something else other than individual, rational choice decisions informs voting behavior. Hall and Taylor credit Sven Steinmo for coining the term historical institutionalism.⁵² They “[define historical institutionalism]…as the formal or informal procedures, routines, norms and conventions embedded in the organizational structure of the polity or political economy.”⁵³
Hall and Taylor explain that “Institutions are resistant to redesign ultimately because they structure the very choices about reform that the individual is likely to make.”⁵⁴ The main thrust of historical institutionalism versus rational choice theory is that historical institutionalism does not constrain itself to the narrowly defined parameters of rational choice. Rational choice would have one believe that every decision that is made is simply based on one’s perception of one’s self-interest. The only role an institution would have would be to set the rules, and decisions of the actors are structured by those rules. Historical institutionalists understand that decisions that are made are not always made with one’s self-interest in mind.⁵⁵ As Steinmo, et al note, “…most of us, most of the time, follow societally defined roles, even when so doing may not be directly in our self-interest.”⁵⁶  A firefighter running into a burning building is not contemplating her self-interest (narrowly defined) when making the conscious decision to risk her life. In the case of public policy decisions, individual members of an elected body, such as a town council, could vote with the majority of the elected body to preserve the elected body’s standing on an issue that is controversial and run the risk of leaving the individual council members vulnerable to electoral defeat.⁵⁷ While institutions are composed of individuals who may approach decision-making through the prism of self-interested goals and objectives, unless the decision makers consider the interests of the institution, the institution would fail. Therefore, an historical analytical approach to political behavior provides useful context to the political decision-making process.⁵⁸
In particular, an analysis of the political behavior of Southwest Virginians and the decision-making process of the region through the lens of historical institutionalism may be more useful than viewing the political behavior of the region through the lens of rational choice. The organizational structure of Southwest Virginia has both formal and informal elements, and there exists “procedures, routines, norms and conventions” that direct the political behavior of the region’s voters.  It may be that formal institutions such as churches, labor unions, local political bodies wield enough influence and power to control the political behavior of Southwest Virginians in order to maintain a status quo. This could explain the reason Southwest Virginians appear to be disinclined to accept societal change that is perceived to be thrust upon them from the outside world.
In analyzing the success of institutions in achieving their policy goals, Immergut focuses on something she refers to as “veto points.” She recognizes that forces can exist that could challenge an institution’s ability to successfully implement “policy innovation.” These “veto points” are not static. The points can shift at any given time depending upon the makeup of the membership.⁵⁹ For instance: in 2015, Abingdon, Virginia town officials considered and approved the rezoning of property from agricultural use to commercial use at the behest of a large corporation headquartered in the town. Pursuant to procedure, the initial consideration of the proposed rezoning was conducted by the Town’s appointed Planning Commission. As part of the formal review process, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and afterward made a recommendation to the elected Town Council. The second portion of the review was conducted by the Town Council. The Council considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission, held its own public hearings, and voted unanimously in favor of the rezoning in spite of loud, organized public opposition.^60,61 Anywhere along the review process, the policy change (the rezoning) could have been quashed. A majority of the individual members of the two institutions in control of the decision, the town’s planning commission and the town council, could have accepted and adopted the positions of the opposition. Instead, both institutions agreed to the rezoning and have been accused by the opposition of acting outside of open government rules.⁶²

The Institutions

In addition to local governments and their myriad appointed boards and commissions, Southwest Virginia also maintains other institutions that collectively preserve the status quo, even while claiming to own a change-mission. Institutions can maintain status quo by populating local government boards and commission, and even regional development organization boards with the same individuals. The Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission (CPPDC) which serves the counties of Tazewell, Russell, Buchanan and Dickenson, and the LENOWISCO Planning District Commission (LPDC) which serves the counties of Lee, Scott, Wise and the City of Norton, sought a joint venture for the deployment of fiber optic infrastructure in their regions. The two organizations came together to establish a non-profit corporation known as the Virginia Coalfield Coalition (VCC) which received both federal and state funding for the deployment of the fiber optic network.⁶³ As noted in the annual report filings with the Virginia State Corporation Commission, the Coalition’s board is populated by members of the two planning district commissions, and these same individuals happen to also serve as elected officials for the counties and city that make up the planning districts.⁶⁴
The locally elected boards are not alone in maintaining their power base within the context of public policy decision-making. Members of the Virginia General Assembly have also utilized the process of legislating state authorities, outlining in code the membership of the different authorities, often populated by themselves and locally-elected officials.
In 1988, the Virginia Coalfield Economic Development Authority (VCEDA) was established for the purpose of diversifying the economy of the coal-producing counties of Virginia.⁶⁵ It was recognized that the region’s economy was overly dependent on the historical ups and downs of the coal economy, and VCEDA was established to be a conduit of economic change.⁶⁶ As an economic development marketing organization, it serves the same region as the CPPDC and LPDC. Its funding has been provided through coal and gas severance taxes paid by the coal and gas operators to the Commonwealth.⁶⁷ The Code of Virginia Title 15.2-6003 specifically outlines the makeup of the VCEDA Board. Five members of the Board are appointed by the Governor; three members of the Board are appointed by the Boards of Supervisors of the three counties contributing the most to the VCEDA fund from the previous fiscal year; three members are appointed by the three largest coal producers as determined by the amount contributed to VCEDA for the previous fiscal year; one member is appointed by the largest gas and oil producer as determined by the amount contributed to VCEDA for the previous fiscal year; two members are the executive directors of the LPDC and CPPDC; one member is designated by the chief executive officer of the Virginia Economic Development Partnership; and one member is designated by the Virginia Coal and Energy Alliance.^68,69
The Southwest Virginia Cultural Heritage Foundation was established by the General Assembly in 2008. The Foundation’s definition of Southwest Virginia includes the CPPDC, the LPDC, the Mount Rogers Planning District (MRPDC), the New River Valley Regional Commission (NRVRC), and the counties of Franklin and Patrick from the Western Piedmont Planning District.⁷⁰ The MRPDC encompasses the counties of Washington, Smyth, Wythe, Bland, Carroll and Grayson, and the cities of Bristol and Galax. The NRVRC encompasses the counties of Pulaski, Giles, Montgomery, and Floyd, and the City of Radford. The Foundation’s mission is to:
encourage the economic development of Southwest Virginia through the expansion of cultural and natural heritage ventures and initiatives related to tourism and other asset-based enterprises, including the Heartwood: Southwest Virginia’s Artisan Center, The Crooked Road, ‘Round the Mountain, and other related cultural and natural heritage organizations and venues that promote entrepreneurial and employment opportunities.
The Code outlines the membership of the Foundation which includes two members of the State Senate, three members of the House of Delegates, two executive directors of planning district commissions from the regions served by the Foundation, an elected or appointed official from the Town of Abingdon, and an elected or appointed official from the Washington County Board of Supervisors. While there are additional members on the Foundation Board, some of those additional members represent other entities with vested interest in maintaining their power base within the context of public policy decision-making, including the Southwest Virginia Higher Education Center, Virginia Highlands Community College, and the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development.⁷¹ The Southwest Virginia Higher Education Center is also established by Virginia code, and its membership includes members of the Virginia General Assembly.⁷² The Virginia Highlands Community College, part of the Virginia Community College System (a state agency), maintains a local advisory board made up of individuals appointed by the local governments within the college’s service region of Smyth County, Washington County and the City of Bristol. The Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development is a state agency.  All of these entities receive appropriations from the Virginia General Assembly.

Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction
Hypothesis
Literature Review
Defining and Describing Southwest Virginia
Methodology
Thesis Layout
Chapter 2 The Theory 
The Institutions
Chapter 3 Election Outcomes and Demographics 
Election Results (House of Delegates)
Election Results (State Senate)
Election Results (Governor)
Election Results (U. S. President)
Election Results (U. S. Senate)
Election Results (U. S. House of Representatives)
Southwest Virginia Economy
Southwest Virginia Culture vs. National Culture
Chapter 4 Conclusion
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
Collectively Voting One’s Culture