Oh What The Hell, I'll Vote For...
For political junkies, there is a fascinating piece by Louis Menand in the current New Yorker on those voters who are undecided and apolitical. How do these people make up their minds? Unlike policy wonks everywhere, the apolitical do not read position papers, sift through speeches or make any reference to policies that would have an effect on their lives.
The article is unlike the usual "Americans don't know anything" stuff written today. Menand does detail some of the depressing details of American ignorance of their own government and inability to think critically about policy. The story goes further than that. Menand points out that "it's not that people don't know anything, it's just that politics isn't what they know." So how are electoral decisions made by what many political scientists believe is the vast majority of American voters--those with no coherent political philosophy? Menand culls the studies and books written on this issue for the past 40 years and discusses the three most likely theories.
1) It's all a crapshoot. People make their choices based on a wide variety of dimly held ideas that they half-remember from some TV show, civics class or discussion at the checkout counter. It's all random. Bush Sr. doesn't like broccoli? Neither do I. He's my man.
2) The dumb kids copy off the smart kids' test paper. The U.S. is really an oligarchy where the real contest is among the 10% with the brains. The rest take their cues from what they can decipher from the real campaign--images, not policies.
3) The Hamburger Helper theory. Apolitical voters are too busy and disinterested to formulate a closely reasoned position on the election. They use shortcuts. Expert opinions, party affiliations and hunches on the character of the candidate and the condition of the country inform their decisions.
The last theory is popular, because it is the most sympathetic to the disengaged populace. The most optimistic believe that the shortcuts allow enough apolitical voters to make the same decisions that a well-informed voter in their position would make. The truly conservative voters who accidently vote liberal are offset by the liberals voting conservative.
I wish more people were in touch with their inner wonk. However, this would make for a very static electorate. Few well-informed voters would change their minds on voting--particularly in such a polarized election such as Bush v. Kerry. It's a more interesting horserace--but is it a better governed country? Are we truly a democracy if 90% of voters make decisions based on fluff, even voting for those politicians that are diametrically opposed to their own interests?
The article is unlike the usual "Americans don't know anything" stuff written today. Menand does detail some of the depressing details of American ignorance of their own government and inability to think critically about policy. The story goes further than that. Menand points out that "it's not that people don't know anything, it's just that politics isn't what they know." So how are electoral decisions made by what many political scientists believe is the vast majority of American voters--those with no coherent political philosophy? Menand culls the studies and books written on this issue for the past 40 years and discusses the three most likely theories.
1) It's all a crapshoot. People make their choices based on a wide variety of dimly held ideas that they half-remember from some TV show, civics class or discussion at the checkout counter. It's all random. Bush Sr. doesn't like broccoli? Neither do I. He's my man.
2) The dumb kids copy off the smart kids' test paper. The U.S. is really an oligarchy where the real contest is among the 10% with the brains. The rest take their cues from what they can decipher from the real campaign--images, not policies.
3) The Hamburger Helper theory. Apolitical voters are too busy and disinterested to formulate a closely reasoned position on the election. They use shortcuts. Expert opinions, party affiliations and hunches on the character of the candidate and the condition of the country inform their decisions.
The last theory is popular, because it is the most sympathetic to the disengaged populace. The most optimistic believe that the shortcuts allow enough apolitical voters to make the same decisions that a well-informed voter in their position would make. The truly conservative voters who accidently vote liberal are offset by the liberals voting conservative.
I wish more people were in touch with their inner wonk. However, this would make for a very static electorate. Few well-informed voters would change their minds on voting--particularly in such a polarized election such as Bush v. Kerry. It's a more interesting horserace--but is it a better governed country? Are we truly a democracy if 90% of voters make decisions based on fluff, even voting for those politicians that are diametrically opposed to their own interests?
