Mystifying Voter Logic.....

Azdak

I came across a story by Greg Sargent, a columnist for the Washington Post. He did a series of interviews with voters in Colorado who are still supposedly "undecided".

The column starts out OK:

Overall, most voters I spoke to, even those who lean Republican, have absorbed a long view of the Obama presidency. They think he was dealt an extraordinarily tough hand and that he’s probably done the best he could under the circumstances. They reject the idea that Obama’s response to those circumstances was a failure — as Romney has charged — only professing disappointment in him for falling short of their expectations, which they have since calibrated.

Hmm....so far, so good. I think this is a fair assessment.

Sargent then follows up with specific interview comments. Here are some from "Jeff" a self-described "independent" who voted for Obama in 2008:

: “I think he did the best he could. It was a tough position to be in. I think anybody would have had great difficulty.”

OK

Jeff is fully aware of Romney’s arguments — his pledge to get the economy going through tax cuts and deregulation — but doesn’t buy them yet. “It’s been tried before, and failed,” he said. “There’s no fresh approach from Romney that I see.” It’s because Jeff doesn’t believe that Romney could do better on the economy that Obama’s one term of experience remains a reason to vote for him again — it’s “on the job training” that Romney lacks.

See....THAT's what I'm talking about!

But Jeff thinks things have stagnated and he could vote for Romney: “I can be swayed either way.”

HUH? WTF?!

So let me get this straight:

1. You agree that the situation in 2009 was "tough", and that Candidate A did the best he could.

2. You agree that Candidate B offers nothing new--just ideas that have "failed" before--and will not do better with the economy.

3. You agree that Candidate A has the experience and Candidate B doesn't.

4. But, you think you might vote for Candidate B anyway.

Again, I repeat: WTF????? Seriously, what kind of logic is that? And my government depends on a dope like you?

Let me step back--I am not starting this particular topic to debate whether or not people should vote for Obama. My preference is well known. And I am not really looking to criticize anyone who has made up their mind to vote AGAINST Obama--plenty of room for that debate in other forums.

What I am questioning--and curious how others feel--is this odd logic of "I think Candidate A did a pretty good job, I don't think Candidate B has any good ideas, but I might vote for Candidate B anyway, just for a change".

Sometimes it seems like Americans have the attention span of gerbils. Gerbils on meth.

It reminds me of discussions with people about the Iraq War. People said they supported it--you asked them why and they replied: "Because of 9/11". You pointed out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, had no weapons of mass destruction, did not represent a threat to the US. They agreed with everything you said. So you asked again why they supported the war and the answer was "well, we had to do something".

I would walk away feeling like the AFLAC duck after listening to Yogi Berra.

Again, this is not meant to be republican vs democrat. If these people truly voted for this idea of random change for no particular reason, then Obama benefitted in 2008.

I guess my question is: Are Americans really that intellectually weak? And I am looking for people to step back from their own political leanings and focus not on the decision per se, but the logic pattern behind it.

BTW if anyone wants to read the entire column, here it is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/interviews-with-colorado-undecideds-should-give-both-candidates-pause/2012/08/16/a2a212e0-e7cf-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_blog.html.

My question is not really the subject of Sargent's blog. It's just my impression after having read some of the comments.

EvanKeel

i didn't read the article, but I'd be curious to know if undecided, independent voters with two X chromosomes feel the same or perhaps they have other issues that they look at in addition to what Jeff considered. Or put more bluntly, stop being a dumb male, Jeff.

Azdak

i didn't read the article, but I'd be curious to know if undecided, independent voters with two X chromosomes feel the same or perhaps they have other issues that they look at in addition to what Jeff considered. Or put more bluntly, stop being a dumb male, Jeff.

There were women as well--I thought the one quote was sufficient, as I don't see that this breaks down along male/female lines.

EvanKeel

i didn't read the article, but I'd be curious to know if undecided, independent voters with two X chromosomes feel the same or perhaps they have other issues that they look at in addition to what Jeff considered. Or put more bluntly, stop being a dumb male, Jeff.

There were women as well--I thought the one quote was sufficient, as I don't see that this breaks down along male/female lines.

Except that women have even more potential reasons to dislike one candidate over the other depending on their stance on those specific issues.

treetop57

I wish I could find an article about the 2004 election that I read back then. It was by a guy who did door-to-door canvassing for Kerry with a list of undecided voters. His conclusion was that undecided voters (that year anyway) were people who didn't follow politics at all, and who didn't really understand what types of issues were in play in the presidential election. He'd ask them what sorts of things were important to them. When he pointed out that Kerry had a plan to deal with whatever issue they brought up, they were skeptical because they didn't see the issue as something that fell within the realm of political action. They didn't see politics as addressing the issues that mattered to them so they didn't follow the political campaigns enough to even know that one candidate was addressing that issue in a way they agreed with.

That article really helped me understand that most undecided voters are extremely low-information voters. They're not interested enough in politics to have any coherent opinion. So when you ask them their opinion, they give incoherent answers.

treetop57

Here it is. http://www.chrishayes.org/articles/decision-makers/

Here are his bullet points, with much greater explanation in the article.

* Undecided voters aren't as rational as you think.
* Undecided voters do care about politics; they just don't enjoy politics.
* A disturbing number of undecided voters are crypto-racist isolationists.
* The worse things got in Iraq, the better things got for Bush.
* Undecided voters don't think in terms of issues.

That last one is the one I was remembering (incorrectly).

Perhaps the greatest myth about undecided voters is that they are undecided because of the "issues." That is, while they might favor Kerry on the economy, they favor Bush on terrorism; or while they are anti-gay marriage, they also support social welfare programs. Occasionally I did encounter undecided voters who were genuinely cross-pressured--a couple who was fiercely pro-life, antiwar, and pro-environment for example--but such cases were exceedingly rare. More often than not, when I asked undecided voters what issues they would pay attention to as they made up their minds I was met with a blank stare, as if I'd just asked them to name their favorite prime number.

The majority of undecided voters I spoke to couldn't name a single issue that was important to them. This was shocking to me. Think about it: The "issue" is the basic unit of political analysis for campaigns, candidates, journalists, and other members of the chattering classes. It's what makes up the subheadings on a candidate's website, it's what sober, serious people wish election outcomes hinged on, it's what every candidate pledges to run his campaign on, and it's what we always complain we don't see enough coverage of. . . .

As far as I could tell, the problem wasn't the word "issue"; it was a fundamental lack of understanding of what constituted the broad category of the "political." The undecideds I spoke to didn't seem to have any intuitive grasp of what kinds of grievances qualify as political grievances. Often, once I would engage undecided voters, they would list concerns, such as the rising cost of health care; but when I would tell them that Kerry had a plan to lower health-care premiums, they would respond in disbelief--not in disbelief that he had a plan, but that the cost of health care was a political issue. It was as if you were telling them that Kerry was promising to extend summer into December.

Azdak

I wish I could find an article about the 2004 election that I read back then. It was by a guy who did door-to-door canvassing for Kerry with a list of undecided voters. His conclusion was that undecided voters (that year anyway) were people who didn't follow politics at all, and who didn't really understand what types of issues were in play in the presidential election. He'd ask them what sorts of things were important to them. When he pointed out that Kerry had a plan to deal with whatever issue they brought up, they were skeptical because they didn't see the issue as something that fell within the realm of political action. They didn't see politics as addressing the issues that mattered to them so they didn't follow the political campaigns enough to even know that one candidate was addressing that issue in a way they agreed with.

That article really helped me understand that most undecided voters are extremely low-information voters. They're not interested enough in politics to have any coherent opinion. So when you ask them their opinion, they give incoherent answers.

What stuck me about the Sargent article was that, in his estimate, the so-called undecideds WERE knowledgeable about many of the issues, seemed to understand the immensity of the task Obama faced, overall thought he did as good a job as anyone could, either didn't understand what alternatives Romney was proposing or didn't think much of them, but still said they were almost waiting for Romney to give them a reason to vote for him.

I have sensed this for awhile, which is why I remain extremely cautious despite Obama's consistent leads in the polls. Like many people, I too assumed they were the "low information" people, but Sargent makes the case that they are not.

treetop57

I think this is archetypical for an undecided voter:

Another independent from the area, a computer consultant, voted for Obama last time, likes his prescriptions for the future and agrees more spending would juice the economy. But this isn’t enough to lock him down, and he wants to see what Romney has to offer: “As an independent that’s what I want to see — a choice.”

It's an independence fetish. He doesn't want to be pinned down until the last minute.

DoingItNow2012

I think undecided voters like those are on one end of the spectrum that has people who are choosing not to vote out of "protest" or vote for a third candidate because they can't decide on the other end. (not speaking of individuals who vote outside of the two major parties because they are truly behind a candidate whose platform they support). I think that people who decide not to vote "because they are all the same" or "my vote won't make a difference" are just too lazy to make a decision, sometimes a hard decision. I don't care how similar two candidates positions are, there is still something that separates them that should allow someone to make a decision. And it can be frustrating and difficult to plough through all of the noise and confusion to get the facts, but it can be done. I suppose at least these undecided voters want to vote and will likely make a decision. But that same laziness is likely to make them vote on however they feel at that moment, for whatever reason, or simply whose looks, voice, demeanor, etc that they like the best.

Oh and for the record, I wish they would do away with the two party setup, and maybe let the four top vote getters in the primary (regardless of party) be on the final ballot... Then the one with the most votes win.

LastSixtySix

It helps with a question like "are American's intellectually weak" to have data. Global rankings say a lot. Here's an interesting article from the Guardian just late last year:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

Then, there is OECD, which has been around since the early 1960s, and includes 34 countries, mostly advanced western nations but a few emerging countries such as Mexico, etc. See the full report at:

http://www.ed.gov/blog/2010/12/international-education-rankings-suggest-reform-can-lift-u-s/

Not even talking math and science but simply reading comprehension (my specialty), 15-year-old American students tested as average performers compared to their international counterparts. Additionally, the U.S. effectively showed no improvement in reading since 2000! Overall, the OECD’s rankings have U.S. students in 14th place, or 41st percentile, in reading literacy among the 34 nations and that, my friends, is a big fat old grade F.

No wonder Colorado's undecided voter can't connect the dots, especially in something as veiled, rapidly changing, and elusive as American politics. He doesn't know how to think - to seep beyond the b.s. and emotional hand-wringing, grab facts, and make a decision.

I don't think undecided voters by and large are unintelligent but they certainly are intellectually weak because they can't comprehend the task at hand. The equivalent of a former athlete trying to maintain fitness by eating junk food and playing video games - ain't happening and it shows.

A lot of the "emotional hand-wringing" comes from frustration with the status quo and the barage of negativity during campaigns, not to mention the resource wastefulness. To suggest, however, that some unidentified thing (group, law, magic fairy dust) needs to change the system from two party to something more only adds to the anxiety and hand-wringing. Some outside force or "they" is we! If we want more than a two-party system, then we need to vote for parties other than the top two. Of course, I don't believe that can ever happen, just saying, if it were to happen in our present governing institution, that's how it would come about. Until then, it's a mute point and, well, not a workable solution.

-Debra

DoingItNow2012

I agree with you Debra. The intention of my statement, including the "they" was to make the point that I don't necessarily support the two party system, but I do support making the tough decision, choosing a candidate, and vote. Yes it might be frustrating and it may be daunting to dig for the truth and for clarity of views, but we should take the time and effort to do so. (I know the "they" is us)

I do believe one day it can change, but will take years that I don't think we will ever see. If a viable candidate thought they could get the votes and support outside of the two parties, they would run as an independent or part of an existing other party. But as it stands today, there's virtually no chance of that. This candidate is likely to conform him or herself to fit in one of the two parties. The environment for change will come about when more people vote and less vote party line. I don't see the problem jumping "sides".

Besides, no one candidate is likely to share all of our viewpoints and opinions. They are not our clones. Millions of people play a part in deciding who will be in the primary election. As a player in our democracy, you choose one. This is why I take issue with "protest" votes simply because you don't want to make a decision or your "perfect" candidate is not there. Truth is, I think it's lazy.

Azdak

I agree with you Debra. The intention of my statement, including the "they" was to make the point that I don't necessarily support the two party system, but I do support making the tough decision, choosing a candidate, and vote. Yes it might be frustrating and it may be daunting to dig for the truth and for clarity of views, but we should take the time and effort to do so. (I know the "they" is us)

I do believe one day it can change, but will take years that I don't think we will ever see. If a viable candidate thought they could get the votes and support outside of the two parties, they would run as an independent or part of an existing other party. But as it stands today, there's virtually no chance of that. This candidate is likely to conform him or herself to fit in one of the two parties. The environment for change will come about when more people vote and less vote party line. I don't see the problem jumping "sides".

Besides, no one candidate is likely to share all of our viewpoints and opinions. They are not our clones. Millions of people play a part in deciding who will be in the primary election. As a player in our democracy, you choose one. This is why I take issue with "protest" votes simply because you don't want to make a decision or your "perfect" candidate is not there. Truth is, I think it's lazy.

The problem with our current system is that any viable third-party candidate will likely NOT come from a grass-roots movement supported by large numbers of people, but he/she will be a self-financed, "vanity" candidate who is able to buy themselves national attention.

The recent candidacy of Newt Gingrich in the republican primary was financed by one person. Without that support, he would not have made it past the first primary.

Michael Bloomberg of New York is fully capable of financing he own campaign for as long as necessary to start to attract national attention and donations.

While I share the frustration with the restrictions of our two-party system, according to the rules as they now stand, I fear the alternative would be much worse.

MaraDiaz

I think undecided voters like those are on one end of the spectrum that has people who are choosing not to vote out of "protest" or vote for a third candidate because they can't decide on the other end. (not speaking of individuals who vote outside of the two major parties because they are truly behind a candidate whose platform they support). I think that people who decide not to vote "because they are all the same" or "my vote won't make a difference" are just too lazy to make a decision, sometimes a hard decision. I don't care how similar two candidates positions are, there is still something that separates them that should allow someone to make a decision. And it can be frustrating and difficult to plough through all of the noise and confusion to get the facts, but it can be done. I suppose at least these undecided voters want to vote and will likely make a decision. But that same laziness is likely to make them vote on however they feel at that moment, for whatever reason, or simply whose looks, voice, demeanor, etc that they like the best.

Oh and for the record, I wish they would do away with the two party setup, and maybe let the four top vote getters in the primary (regardless of party) be on the final ballot... Then the one with the most votes win.

Actually, I'm too depressed to do the research, pick a third party candidate, and vote this year. Especially since of course it's a waste of time. A Democrat or Republican will win yet again, and yet again I won't be able to tell the difference between them, and yet again my fellow Americans will be up in arms about it like soccer hooligans at each others throats, and with about as much logic.

But there is one thing I can do about it. I can move out of this country.

And yeah, before someone says it, I'm quite likely to find out that politics whereever I move is just as ridiculous because, well, humanity is ridiculous, and I include myself. But at least in some other countries citizens aren't trained out of logical thinking when it comes to history and politics. In this country, that's exactly how we're trained from Kindergarten on up. To be little patriots who revere our 'founding fathers' and glorify everything our country does.

MaraDiaz

I agree with you Debra. The intention of my statement, including the "they" was to make the point that I don't necessarily support the two party system, but I do support making the tough decision, choosing a candidate, and vote. Yes it might be frustrating and it may be daunting to dig for the truth and for clarity of views, but we should take the time and effort to do so. (I know the "they" is us)

I do believe one day it can change, but will take years that I don't think we will ever see. If a viable candidate thought they could get the votes and support outside of the two parties, they would run as an independent or part of an existing other party. But as it stands today, there's virtually no chance of that. This candidate is likely to conform him or herself to fit in one of the two parties. The environment for change will come about when more people vote and less vote party line. I don't see the problem jumping "sides".

Besides, no one candidate is likely to share all of our viewpoints and opinions. They are not our clones. Millions of people play a part in deciding who will be in the primary election. As a player in our democracy, you choose one. This is why I take issue with "protest" votes simply because you don't want to make a decision or your "perfect" candidate is not there. Truth is, I think it's lazy.

The problem with our current system is that any viable third-party candidate will likely NOT come from a grass-roots movement supported by large numbers of people, but he/she will be a self-financed, "vanity" candidate who is able to buy themselves national attention.

The recent candidacy of Newt Gingrich in the republican primary was financed by one person. Without that support, he would not have made it past the first primary.

Michael Bloomberg of New York is fully capable of financing he own campaign for as long as necessary to start to attract national attention and donations.

While I share the frustration with the restrictions of our two-party system, according to the rules as they now stand, I fear the alternative would be much worse.

Ugh. Bad memories of Ross Perot's candidacy.

KimmyEB

And yeah, before someone says it, I'm quite likely to find out that politics whereever I move is just as ridiculous because, well, humanity is ridiculous, and I include myself. But at least in some other countries citizens aren't trained out of logical thinking when it comes to history and politics. In this country, that's exactly how we're trained from Kindergarten on up. To be little patriots who revere our 'founding fathers' and glorify everything our country does.

I'll actually post something relevant to the topic later, but I just wanted to say real quick--I completely agree with this.

LastSixtySix

In this country, that's exactly how we're trained from Kindergarten on up. To be little patriots who revere our 'founding fathers' and glorify everything our country does.

I'll actually post something relevant to the topic later, but I just wanted to say real quick--I completely agree with this.

Hey hey hey, what a great segue! What you say may be a big reason why we are losing academic standing in the rankings with other western countries, because more value here is put on "what" we think versus "how" we think. Methods and reasoning, which naturally build from questions that challenge the status quo, are the basis of quality knowledge and progress. I'm sure if The Enlightment hadn't taken place, things would be a lot simpler. We certainly wouldn't have been able to feed a growing world population, that's for sure, and would most likely still be living under feudalism so trying to win the popular vote wouldn't be a problem either. There would be no undecideds - everything would already be decided for everyone.



-Debra

LastSixtySix

I agree with you Debra. The intention of my statement, including the "they" was to make the point that I don't necessarily support the two party system, but I do support making the tough decision, choosing a candidate, and vote. Yes it might be frustrating and it may be daunting to dig for the truth and for clarity of views, but we should take the time and effort to do so. (I know the "they" is us)

I do believe one day it can change, but will take years that I don't think we will ever see. If a viable candidate thought they could get the votes and support outside of the two parties, they would run as an independent or part of an existing other party. But as it stands today, there's virtually no chance of that. This candidate is likely to conform him or herself to fit in one of the two parties. The environment for change will come about when more people vote and less vote party line. I don't see the problem jumping "sides".

Besides, no one candidate is likely to share all of our viewpoints and opinions. They are not our clones. Millions of people play a part in deciding who will be in the primary election. As a player in our democracy, you choose one. This is why I take issue with "protest" votes simply because you don't want to make a decision or your "perfect" candidate is not there. Truth is, I think it's lazy.

Right on, doingitnow. Conformity by fitting round holes into square pegs - that's what the neoliberal system both powerful parties run under does. You, however, are a lot more optimistic than I am about a third party ever getting a chance in hell. The only one of not recently was Ross Perot and he was sorta a lunatic - entertaining lunatic and scary. :bigsmile: :bigsmile: :bigsmile: