An essential tenet of democracy, the foundation without which electoral politics would crumble, is voting. Many trends and patterns are studied to understand voter behaviour and subsequently predict future outcomes and turnouts. This is an exercise that is conducted in every democracy, irrespective of its nature and type. In the process, it is only natural that speculative claims often emerge about the crucial activity of voting and about voter behaviour. Such speculations have led to the development of a variety of generic assumptions, some which can even be classified as myths. One such popular myth about voter behaviour is that voters are rational, logical, and selfish. This paper analyses the credibility of this claim and aims to question the very idea of a rational voter, arguing that voting cannot be completely removed from emotions.
Democracy relies upon its voters to make informed and rational choices, such which would benefit not only their own interests but the interests of the entire country. The hope is that each voter would remain objective and unbiased in the exercise of their right to vote (Marcus 672). However, the extent of rationality employed in voting has been widely debated by scholars of the social sciences. The long-debated topic of whether or not voters are truly rational is fast inviting more attention, especially given the significance of voting in a democracy. Analysing voter behaviour in recent years can shed some light on the role of emotions in political behaviour, and the extent to which voters exercise rationality (673).
Many scholars argue that the decision to vote in itself can be viewed as an irrational one, guided by emotions. Referred to as the ‘voting paradox’, the phenomenon explains that the costs that voters incur to vote exceed the benefits they may reap. This is because virtually, a single vote has negligible influence on the result of the elections (Winter). Yet, many people vote. This is due to the fact that voting is not just an activity that influences the results but also one that allows individuals to express their preferences, ideologies, support, distaste, among others (Winter). Emotions very heavily guide the way people vote, influencing even the level of turnout. Anger or resentment towards a party could incite more voters to turn up and vote against it, whereas enthusiastic support towards another could create a surge in positive voters (Wagner).
Ideology is yet another factor that influences voting and which can be viewed as an emotionally guided concept. One’s ideologies are based on a variety of factors which are rooted in both rationality, as well as emotions. Ideologies often lead to certain biases and since they are close to one’s personal beliefs, they incite an emotional desire in individuals to defend and protect them (Winter). Heated political debates, vehement protests, and even informal discussions with friends and family are all indicative of how emotionally charged ideologies can be, guiding the direction of one’s vote. Moreover, these subjective preferences and beliefs also lead individuals to fall into somewhat of a confirmation bias. Scholars argue that individuals often look for and focus on evidence that confirms their emotional choices pertaining to their ideologies and political orientation, overlooking in the process the conflict that may exist between rationality and emotion (Winter). As a result, individuals falsely believe that their preferences are based on logic and reason, untouched by emotions. An example could be Charles Taber and Milton Lodge’s experiments at Stony Brook University (Taber and Lodge 761). It revealed that despite receiving a list of factual pros and cons for the policies of gun control and affirmative action in the United States and being asked to rate the arguments rationally, most individuals exercised bias and rated certain arguments higher if they were in line with their personal beliefs (763). This same behaviour is observed in voting patterns, largely because ideologies and political orientations very heavily influence voters’ decisions.
It is very evident that emotion plays a significant role in voting patterns. Politicians and policymakers, too, are privy to this information which is why it can be quite easy for them to appeal to certain emotional tendencies of their voters in order to increase their voter bank (McKevitt). This is where individuals’ tendencies to allow emotions to guide their vote can perhaps have detrimental effects. Staunch support and application of one particular ideology by a politician and/or policymaker on all issues, irrespective of its nature, can lead to decisions that may not best serve the interests of the society (McKevitt). This power, however, is provided to them by the very emotionally guided voting individuals engage in. Policies should be rooted not in moral sentiments but should rather be in accordance with the public interest. Therefore, it becomes important that voters come face-to-face with the reality that voting is not entirely a rational exercise. Understanding one’s emotional biases and tendencies can help one become a more rational voter (Winter). While the idea of voting being strictly devoid of any emotion can be viewed as a myth, exercise in self-awareness, introspection, as well as in understanding the motives and strategies of political actors can inculcate more rationality in the voting process.
Works Cited
Marcus, George E., and Michael B. Mackuen. “Anxiety, Enthusiasm, and the Vote: The Emotional Underpinnings of Learning and Involvement During Presidential Campaigns.” The American Political Science Review, vol. 87, no. 3, 1993, pp. 672– 685. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2938743. Accessed 2 Jan. 2021.
McKevitt, Steve. “Persuasive Politics: Why Emotional Beats Rational for Connecting with Voters.” The Conversation, The Conversation, 12 Feb. 2020, theconversation.com/persuasive-politics-why-emotional-beats-rational-for-connecting-with-voters-116098.
Taber, Charles S., and Milton Lodge. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 50, no. 3, 2006, pp. 755–769. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3694247. Accessed 2 Jan. 2021.
Wagner, Markus. “How Do Emotions Shape the Choices of Voters? Evidence from the 2010 UK General Election.” EUROPP, London School of Economics and Political Science, 29 Dec. 2014, blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/12/23/how-do-emotions-shape-the-choices-of-voters-evidence-from-the-2010-uk-general-election/.
Winter, Eyal. “Voting Is Irrational. Emotions Always Win | Eyal Winter.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 7 May 2015, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/07/voting-irrational-emotions-politics-ideology.
Comments