.png)
Rebecca SE Tan
11 July 2022
Democracy is only perfect if we believe humans to be perfect – and we’re not. While democracy is often lauded as the best system to understand what we the people truly want, I argue that voting in democracies is greatly unrepresentative. In a world where there is simply too much information (and misinformation), the general public takes shortcuts in their decision-making process, leading to non-rational (but not necessarily irrational) voting choices.
So, what are some of these non-rational inputs into people’s decision-making?
1. Party ID
Party ID is the attachment people feel towards a political party, much like a sports fan’s loyalty to their team. This party ID can be intergenerational, as parents pass them on to their children, possibly even before they understand what the party stands for. This partisanship is particularly resistant to change and even deepens as one supports their party over time. Hence, even when party members, ideals or needs change, voters may not adopt a different voting preference. For example, during the 2017 British House of Commons election, a whopping 85% of partisans voted for their party. A strong sense of party ID may also make voters more susceptible to “alternative facts” by their preferred parties and candidates, as they are not likely to fact-check them.
Interestingly, recent scholarship has also shown that the reverse may also occur – a voter may choose to never vote for a party. This negative partisanship may also consistently influence voter choice, such as favouring parties that act in opposition to their disliked party.
2. “It’s the economy, stupid!”
The popularity of a politician may simply boil down to luck – were they in government during an economic recession or boom? While politicians may not actually have that much control over the economy, they are often held accountable regardless (Fig. 1).
Figure 1. Chart showing a positive correlation between a well-performing economy and the chance of an incumbent winning in America.
As long as the government is perceived to have done well, the incumbent party is rewarded, as in the case of Ronald Reagan in 1984 or Bill Clinton in 1996. Conversely, a downbeat economic outlook can severely punish an incumbent party. While I’m sure there are many other reasons for Obama’s win in 2008, the financial crisis surely aided his case. With an economic recession on the horizon, I wonder if we will see numerous offices change hands.
3. Charisma
Perhaps not very surprisingly, voters can be more influenced by the charisma of a politician rather than their proposed policies. Irrelevant factors such as height, gender, or race can grant politicians a significant advantage.
Interestingly, charisma takes on different forms. On the one hand, voters may be attracted to the "Obama" type of charm – portrayed as decisive, caring and calm. On the other hand, we cannot deny the allure of "Duterte" or "Trump" – the strong, dominant character who will "do what they need to". In both cases, however, charisma provides no indication of governmental efficiency – rather, parties that are spearheaded by a single charismatic leader may actually have incoherent policy views.
This charisma factor becomes even more tenuous when considering that a voter's impression of politicians greatly depends on their advertisements, borne out of election budgets. Party financing is often unfair due to an incumbent advantage or lobbying. For example, for his re-election campaign in 2012, Obama spent a colossal cheque of $1.123 billion. There are also many scandals related to lobbying, such as the alleged involvement of yakuza gangsters in funding the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan.
4. Curated information
Even if voters seek information about parties, their sources may be incredibly biased, especially in our digital age. Partisan or corporate journalism may misrepresent or slant truths. Additionally, voters may end up in echo chambers that reinforce their pre-existing biases (and party IDs) as social media often employs algorithms to curate our consumption based on past engagement history.
This post-truth era also encourages the engineering of voter information. Incumbent parties may use media sources to spread half-truths or engage digital surveillance to control online discourses. For example, the People's Action Party in Singapore passed the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) in 2019. Using vague "out-of-bounds" markers, POFMA threatens potentially dreadful consequences for “misleading” online posts. Even if the law is not directly enforced for political dissent, the threat alone may cause citizens to self-censor.
Discussion
Gathering comprehensive information about every political candidate and their policy choices is costly and time-consuming. Hence, it is not surprising that voters utilise shortcuts for their decision-making by considering factors that are not directly related to their true policy preferences. Tactics used by incumbent parties are to be expected as well – if one believed their ideas to be the best way forward for the country, would they not use their power to win? Unfortunately, however, some parties may become so self-absorbed in securing a win that they cast aside what voters want.
With so many non-rational inputs into voting patterns, I argue that democratic systems are not truly representative. In fact, the very assumption that the public will vote (even non-rationally) is shaky. In non-presidential U.S. elections, voter turnout rates often fall below 40% because voters are uninterested or equally dissatisfied with every candidate. At this point, it feels a little laughable to claim that democracy reveals our congregated policy preferences.
What do you think about democracy? Are there any ways we can counter these non-rational inputs? Leave your comments below!
Author's note: Click on the "Democracy" tag at the bottom for related articles!
Comments