The percentage was further different between people with low and high academic levels. The data presented in the voting behavior of the 2012 election justifies the argument. Combination of the factors, level of income and education, derives the same conclusion. A person with both poor income and less educational experience are likely to stay away from the election process. This is dissimilar to the well-educated and high earning people.
In the 2012, election family income influenced the voting trend significantly. Generally, families with a stable financial income value the need to vote. In an argument by Wayne the need to vote among people in the United States is determined by the ability of people to feel the relevance of the process (67). The author further asserts that the need to vote increases with the increase of the benefits a person gets from the government (Wayne 67). From the argument it is an accurate assertion that people have the perception that their level of income is determined by the government. The ability of the government to raise the income level raised the need to vote among citizens. The same argument is supported by Coates who is of the assumption that rich families participate more in patriotic gestures that poor families (181). The author further asserts that the trend is influenced by the value people get from the state (Coates 181). In addition, people have developed the perception that the role of the government is increase their income. A failure to provide this requirement minimizes the willingness of people to vote.
Minus the independent variable of education, statistics collected in the 2012 election depicted the effect of family income in influencing the need to vote. People earning less than $30,000 voted less that people that earned more than $110,000. People earning more than $110,000 voted as a percentage rate of 91.9% against 70.5% of people earning less than $30,000 (Lecture Notes). In addition, only 8.9% of people