POLITICAL MEMO:

It’s not the issues that likely make up many minds

Experts say uninformed voters have power

Sunday, Sept. 14, 2008 | 2 a.m.

The question is as maddening as it is quadrennial: How do the amoeba middle, the undecided, the independent, the low-information voters make up their minds?

What on earth goes through their brains?

We’re not talking about the partisans, the roughly 80 percent of voters who lean toward one party or the other and will generally go that way, assuming the candidate meets a reasonable threshold.

We’re talking about the other 20 percent. Some of these people like to guard their independence — studying issues, weighing candidates’ resumes and proposed solutions. That’s only a tiny percentage of the 20 percent, though. For the most part, this group doesn’t know much about public policy, or its knowledge is instinctual, with basic hard-wired ideas of justice.

This is not meant to be an insult. They’re busy. They hate politics. Can’t blame them.

“The decisive bloc of voters may indeed be people who don’t follow issues, so character may matter quite a bit,” said Michael McDonald, an expert on voter behavior at the Brookings Institution and George Mason University.

Within this context of “character,” how do voters make up their minds?

There are many theories, none conclusive.

“Why People Vote Republican,” a recent essay by University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt, offers some clues, tying “why” to the origins of morality.

He posits that liberal-leaning Americans tend to subscribe to social contract ethics: You and I agree we’re equals, and we won’t get in each other’s way. The basic values: fairness, reciprocity and helping those in need.

Social contract liberals tend not to care so much about victimless crime.

Traditional morality, however, arises out of a more ancient need to quell selfish desires and thus create strong groups, Haidt argues. Its adherents do this by demanding loyalty to the group, respecting authority and revering sanctified traditions, symbols, etc.

People often fall into one or the other category, and a candidate who speaks to these instincts will win over these voters.

Democrats who disrespect or fail to understand the second type of morality — the morality of sanctified symbols, authority and loyalty to group — do so at their peril, as when Sen. Barack Obama talked about bitter Americans clinging to God and guns.

Other theories:

University of California, Berkeley, linguist George Lakoff thinks conservatives are more aware of the importance of metaphor and language, and thus frame political debates to their advantage. So, for example, President Bush proposed “tax relief,” which made the current tax structure seem like an affliction. Who could oppose that? Examples are endless.

New York Times columnist David Brooks pointed this year to Princeton University psychologist Alexander Todorov, who claims he can predict the votes of 70 percent of test subjects by their facial reactions when seeing a candidate for the first time.

Other theorists think voters have an emotional response to candidates, and then create post-hoc rational reasons for supporting a candidate. They personally and emotionally like Arizona Sen. John McCain, and then come up with some reason: He’s against earmarks.

Brookings’ McDonald tends to work in the other direction. He thinks issues do matter, and quite a lot. In his view, people make a determination about whether they agree or disagree with the candidate on issues, and then fill in character blanks.

Such as: Candidate X wants to cut taxes, and I want a tax cut. Suddenly Candidate X seems more like a someone I’d like to have a beer with, as the (in)famous saying goes.

Or, Candidate Y wants to raise taxes, and suddenly the voter starts to think the candidate is a wine-swiller who’s out of touch with his values.

In this determination, I fill in character traits based on whether I agree or disagree with the candidate on the issues.

But what if I have little or no information on the candidate and his issues?

Now we’re back to that 20 percent of voters, and again trying to figure out what moves them.

Or as McDonald put it: “The dirty little secret of American politics is that the least informed decide the winner.”

Sun reporter Joe Schoenmann contributed to this story.

Discussion: 3 comments so far…

By neiman1

9/14/08 at 4:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

People removed from middle America just don't seem to be able to understand. When they sit around in their own circles and discuss things they are sure everyone must agree because all of their friends do. They forget, people in New York City and San Fransisco and other urban inner cities are very different from the rest of the country, and we are the majority.

Palin appeals to people because she represents them. Not necessarily agreeing with all her positions, but overall the person herself. She represents a citizen politician. When you read something ridiculous the government does and you say, "If I could be in charge for just a week, I would fix that place quick". She is that person. She is the one that said, I can do better than the idiot in charge. Then she ran for Governor and proved it.

The American public is in love with her and her folksy way and raw outdoors feel. They love her can do attitude and lack of fear. They love her family, especially because it has its own problems. They see her as REAL. They know what she stands for, because they do too. They also know standing for something doesn't make it always occur, because no matter how they all tried, they had failures too. They like it that she is still trying with all the normal problems. And when people pick on her, like this article, they rally around like someone just picked on their family, because they think she is.

It's going to be a fast finish from here. The Palin love affair cannot wear out in 7 weeks time, and attacking it wont do any good, because the people that have fallen for her, have adopted her, and you are attacking them. The biggest worry the democratic party should have now, is, do they lose the Senate and the Congress as well, the love affair is a real one.
By Kaz

9/15/08 at 9:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

I am hoping that women who were Hillary supporters and are now going to McCain/Palen keep in mind that McCain will most likely have an opportunity, were he to win the election, to appoint more than one Supreme Court justice. If he appoints a strong conservative there is a reasonable chance that the Roe v Wade decision will be overruled and women will loose their right to choose. If they were for Hillary for Hillary’s principles they should now be for Obama. The last thing Hillary wants is for women to loose their right to choose. Don’t let her down.
By Kaz

9/17/08 at 10:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

FACT: If you earn less than $250,000 a year, Obama will ***LOWER*** your federal income tax - not increase it.

FACT: Your Obama tax cut will be larger than your McCain tax cut.

FACT: McCain gives a multi-millionaire a tax cut that is ***8 times bigger*** than a low income earners tax cut.

See for yourself. Here is proof!!!!!!

Here is a link to a calculator you can use to see how much of a tax break you will get with Obama's plan. (I haven't been able to find one yet for the McCain plan. Why is that????.)
http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

Here is a link to a very clear tax cut comparison chart. This chart is referenced in many newspapers and magazine articles.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Here is the link to get the full 56-page comparison of the two tax plans published by the independent Tax Policy Center.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publicati...

« Previous Ten Next Ten »

Live chat: Tuesday, noon PST; Chat with Krista Creelman; Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question