Home > Politics, News & Issues > Politics, News & Issues (Other)
Results so far:
| Emotion | 78% | 612 votes | Total: 782 votes | |
| Reason | 22% | 170 votes |
Emotion
Created on: July 08, 2007
People tend to base their election votes primarily on emotion, though a little reasoning does come into it when they are fully aware of the facts relating to a particular candidate or party. Emotions play a big part in voting choice because we tend to be drawn to anything which makes us feel comfortable, secure, which reflects our values and aspirations and which feels inclusive to us.
1. COMFORT and SECURITY....Anything which makes us feel welcome, in alignment with its aims and objectives, will draw us towards it. There is no reasoning in comfort and security. That is pure emotion which makes sure that anxiety and fear are kept well away from us. We want that choice to give us that cosy feeling of having a friend on our side, someone who will always look after our interest, who will keep the bad days away and give us the reassurance that we will be safe under their wing. Hence people will gravitate towards candidates who seem to exude confidence and stability to provide the necessary feeling of security.
2. Reflection of VALUES.....Reasoning takes a back seat when it comes to our values. That's pure emotion and identity. Our values reflect who we are, what we represent and where we hope to go. Any party or candidate reflecting our values immediately has our vote. That tells us we are among friends, among people who care about what we value, and the country would be in a 'safe pair of hands', being taken in the direction we too are travelling. That is why we tend to become loyal to one party or person over a long period of time because fear ensures that we do not align with anything different which might not work. So we tend to stick to tried and tested governments, which deliver the same dubious fare time after time, but which keep our comfort levels high and our values as priority.
3. Personal ASPIRATIONS....We tend to vote for our future, whoever appears to be able to make that possible. Our life is all about pleasure and pain which are both controlled by our emotions. It is natural that we are going to gravitate towards those who give us the most pleasure and are perceived to diminish any pain. Thus we will be keen to cast our votes for anyone fulfilling those essential emotional needs which align with our aspirations of what we would like to achieve and to be: anyone who would be able to fulfil our dreams and increase that sense of pleasure and value.
4. Feeling INCLUSIVE.....Any party which welcomes us and makes us feel significant and special has our vote. We all want to matter to others, to feel worthy and valued. Any candidate who extends that welcoming hand and genuine warmth will take us with them. If they are good looking as well, even better! It has little to do with reasoning. No one wants to feel on the periphery of life, or to be isolated from the action, and so we tend to vote for those who make us feel we really do matter.
It is feelings and emotions that lead us to the choices we make in elections. Feelings are emotions and they dictate the level of fear and anxiety we feel. The less fearful we are, and the more valued we feel, the more we are drawn towards the source of that warmth. As the proverbial saying goes: "No one is likely to remember what you said, but they will always remember how you made them FEEL."
Learn more about this author, Elaine Sihera.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Reason
Created on: November 15, 2008
In times of relative comfort and security, many of us might lean toward emotion to vote for a candidate. But when we face hard choices and bewildering issues, we tend to become more pragmatic.
When life is good, it's easier to view a candidate by his or her warmth, appearance and rhetoric on emotional issues such as gay marriage, stem cell research, pro-choice or pro-life, prayer and Creationism in schools, regulation or deregulation, global warming and the plight of the polar bear. These issues have little effect on our daily lives.
When our very survival is threatened, when we face the stresses of reduced healthcare, lower wages, job losses, home foreclosures, the collapse of financial institutions and the looming bankruptcy of General Motors, we become more interested, more aware, more "reasoned" in investigating proposed solutions as well as the character of a candidate. How we "feel" about abortion seems less urgent than the stark reality of whether we lose our job and our home.
Reason is the reason the current President-Elect won the 2008 election. More of us looked at our wallets and found them empty while our costs for fundamental needs increased.
Many of us were slapped up side the head with the realization that government actually makes a difference in how we live, how we feed our children, whether we get medical attention, and if we're going to make it to 2012, the next election cycle.
But whether reason trumps emotion also depends on a recent political phenomenon: the elevation of one party's agenda to a religion. The Republican Party, once the party of small government, personal responsibility, fiscal prudence and protection of individual rights has morphed into the party of moral righteousness and champion of Fundamentalist Christian beliefs. There are Republicans who equate a Republican president with a Catholic pope. They subconsciously think of Republican Senators as bishops and House Representatives as priests who always speak the Word of God. These Officers of God are virtually infallible: their statements are beyond refute, their positions above reproach, and their goals divinely inspired. They can do no wrong.
This phenomenon is cultural, not political. Civility is based on reason and is but a thin veneer covering our tendency to judge and react from primal emotions. Religion promotes rational behavior over the instinctive, however, in a secular era, many of us place our beliefs as much in our political party as in our church.
During the 1980s, the Republican Party cleverly aligned itself with Christianity in order to reach Nixon's "silent majority." After all, 82% of Americans considered themselves practicing Christians. The Party's platform deemphasized issues of governing and emphasized moral imperatives . . . visceral matters of the heart and religion upon which voters were encouraged to believe they were closer to God if they voted for Republicans. The Bush-Cheney administration compounded that and imbued the Commander-In-Chief with divine provenance to start two wars, one of vengeance and the second for oil.
In the end, however, the GOP's agenda was revealed not as adhering to God's Law but, instead, to a peculiarly deceptive and avaricious craving to seize power and grant benefits to its own hierarchy. Not unlike, I might add, the Christian popes of the Dark Ages.
With our international reputation in tatters and our domestic economy shattered, that illusion has been dispelled. Still, the Republican Party's image of being enshrouded in robes of divinity caused a substantive number of the electorate to vote their emotions rather than their common sense.
Fortunately they were far fewer in number than the reasoned electorate.
Learn more about this author, Michael Patrick.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.