![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Atypical voters
Sep. 29th, 2017 11:01 amAfter the election results came out I saw a lot of grief being expressed on Facebook, one particular form being people lashing out at any supposed right-aligned voters on their friends list and asking them to leave (there was a similar outpouring in 2014). More than one person has commented to me that they are uncomfortable seeing this level of vitriol expressed by their normally caring friends. I accept people's right to express their upset in this fashion but also doubt that there will be any lasting effect; for the simple reason that probably no-one in those friends lists did actually vote National.
There are a whole heap of fallacies tied up in the emotion these posts, often from people who IMO would normally know better. But the root of it is assuming that people like us are representative. We're not.
NZ's lauded "two degrees of separation" notwithstanding, practically all my NZ voting friends who are likely to be reading this, and all their voting friends, and all theirs are a drop in the bucket or NZ voters. We are not the people crammed at the bottom of Inequality Tower.
We mostly have some things in common which are luxuries to the larger portion of the population; for example the
- time
- skills and
- access to multiple sources
... to keep ourselves informed. And we do
- take an interest in politics
- seek out a variety of views even if we don't always agree with them
- can trace the cause and effect from policy to outcome
- we can critically examine the statements made during the campaign (and other times)
- typically have decided who we are going to vote for well before reaching the polling booth
For a sadly more realistic perspective on the level to which the median voter is informed, take this message from Emma who has been involved at the chalk face of a number of elections and was observing at a polling station this year.
Something I recall reading in previous years about the circumstances and psychology of the majority of voters - which or course I can't find now because google results are clogged with news about the election just been so I will have to paraphrase:
- politics isn't something thought about often; their immediate lives are choked with higher priorities (work, family, survival)
- the effect of government policy on their lives- especially negative effects - is often so removed from the policy or the implementation of the policy (especially over time) as to not be attributed
- outside "tribal" affiliations often have not decided who to vote for for before reaching the voting booth
- are going to look at the list of names/parties and remember only what they have heard/seen in the mainstream media and from their friends (who may be no better informed)
- in the end are probably going to go with what feels like the "safest" option
And this is why campaigns of fear, attack ads and misinformation like National ran this election, backed up by bold statements about how well things are going, work. If you are just getting by or you are maybe struggling a little but still have hope: change feels risky.
While according to all social indicators the state of country has been run down by the current government over the past three terms it is clear that the majority of people are not yet at the stage of voting for risk for the other likely reason - out of desperation.
(Ironically it probably speaks to the success of the last Labour government that the majority of New Zealanders who voted felt comfortable enough in their lives to take a chance on change.)
This is not helped IMO by the narrative that continues to prevail that someones circumstances are somehow a reflection of their own efforts and worth as a "productive member of society". This narrative greatly aids the government of the day (whichever side it comes from) in disclaiming responsibility for those not doing well (while of course claiming credit for the circumstances of those who are doing well), and is why elections in NZ have so often been the sitting governments to lose rather than the oppositions to win; another hangover from the continued insistence on framing things in an old FPP two-party style manner rather than a coalition based MMP style manner :(
There are a whole heap of fallacies tied up in the emotion these posts, often from people who IMO would normally know better. But the root of it is assuming that people like us are representative. We're not.
NZ's lauded "two degrees of separation" notwithstanding, practically all my NZ voting friends who are likely to be reading this, and all their voting friends, and all theirs are a drop in the bucket or NZ voters. We are not the people crammed at the bottom of Inequality Tower.
We mostly have some things in common which are luxuries to the larger portion of the population; for example the
- time
- skills and
- access to multiple sources
... to keep ourselves informed. And we do
- take an interest in politics
- seek out a variety of views even if we don't always agree with them
- can trace the cause and effect from policy to outcome
- we can critically examine the statements made during the campaign (and other times)
- typically have decided who we are going to vote for well before reaching the polling booth
For a sadly more realistic perspective on the level to which the median voter is informed, take this message from Emma who has been involved at the chalk face of a number of elections and was observing at a polling station this year.
Don't over-estimate the messaging/intent of voters. A significant number don't know what an electorate is. And it's not their fault.
— Emma Hart (@Ghetsuhm) September 23, 2017
Something I recall reading in previous years about the circumstances and psychology of the majority of voters - which or course I can't find now because google results are clogged with news about the election just been so I will have to paraphrase:
- politics isn't something thought about often; their immediate lives are choked with higher priorities (work, family, survival)
- the effect of government policy on their lives- especially negative effects - is often so removed from the policy or the implementation of the policy (especially over time) as to not be attributed
- outside "tribal" affiliations often have not decided who to vote for for before reaching the voting booth
- are going to look at the list of names/parties and remember only what they have heard/seen in the mainstream media and from their friends (who may be no better informed)
- in the end are probably going to go with what feels like the "safest" option
And this is why campaigns of fear, attack ads and misinformation like National ran this election, backed up by bold statements about how well things are going, work. If you are just getting by or you are maybe struggling a little but still have hope: change feels risky.
While according to all social indicators the state of country has been run down by the current government over the past three terms it is clear that the majority of people are not yet at the stage of voting for risk for the other likely reason - out of desperation.
(Ironically it probably speaks to the success of the last Labour government that the majority of New Zealanders who voted felt comfortable enough in their lives to take a chance on change.)
This is not helped IMO by the narrative that continues to prevail that someones circumstances are somehow a reflection of their own efforts and worth as a "productive member of society". This narrative greatly aids the government of the day (whichever side it comes from) in disclaiming responsibility for those not doing well (while of course claiming credit for the circumstances of those who are doing well), and is why elections in NZ have so often been the sitting governments to lose rather than the oppositions to win; another hangover from the continued insistence on framing things in an old FPP two-party style manner rather than a coalition based MMP style manner :(
