posted
I've got a political campaign in my WIP. It's mayoral and non-partisan. One of the candidates can't keep the same position from one day to the next. I have reason to believe someone like that could succeed in politics.
Yet I'm finding it hard to write about a supporter of a lying candidate, because I don't understand this position. But they number in the millions. Any theories as to how a voter convinces himself his candidate's the best, when the candidate both agrees with his position and disagrees with it? Here's the best I can think of:
* The opponent embraced the hateful position first, and the voter is willing to grasp at any shred * The voter says, politicians lie, but at least this liar belongs to my party
posted
The voter believes that it is necessary for "his" candidate to lie in order to win office and implement the "true" agenda. Because this agenda cannot win in open public debate (due to all the morons in the electorate), it is acceptable to embrace a candidate who lies. This is just a refinement of your second reason, though.
The voter is aware that the candidate is a liar, but really likes the policies advocated by close advisors of the candidate and believes that those are the policies that will be followed, whatever the candidate may be saying today. Again, that's your second reason, with "polititions are just figureheads anyways" thrown in for good measure.
A lot of other reasons could fit under your second, it's a rich field of superficially different reasons to vote for a liar.
Here's a different one, though. The voter doesn't pay a lot of attention to the specific words of the candidate on a day to day basis, but believes the other party and the media are simply engaging in negative attacks by calling the candidate a liar, probably by taking his words out of context. I'd guess that some varient on this (usually combined with vague thoughts that the candidate is good-looking, well-spoken, heroic, compassionate, etc.) accounts for the bulk of people that vote for candidates who would be revealed as liars by half a second's examination of the evidence. The easiest way to get around a problem like that is to not examine the evidence, eh? And most people don't.
If you ask most people why they vote for a candidate who lies all the time (and it doesn't matter which candidate your talking about) that's the kind of answer you'll get. "He's not a liar, his enemies in the biased press just keep quoting him out of context."
Okay, seriously. Charisma is a big part of why people vote the way they do. The candidate has the intangible "something" that resonates with the voters.
Depending on the type of campaign you want to run, there could also be a certain amount of voter intimidation.
Voter apathy could lead to a liar being elected. This goes hand-in-hand with the idea that it doesn't matter who you vote for, all politicians are the same. Some people will take that idea and just mark an 'X' wherever the pencil lands, others won't even bother to go vote. Voter apathy can also manifest itself in people not bothering to educate themselves during the campaign, so they go and vote for whomever.
Candidate familliarity also goes a long way with voters, especially if they don't really follow the campaign. If you've seen the movie Head of State, starring Chris Rock, that is the premise of the whole movie. It doesn't matter who you are or what your platform is or what you say, if people know who you are, they are more likely to vote for you than for someone they've never really heard of. Sort of, "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't."
posted
There is a mindset that every politician is a liar, that also adds to this problem. We have a tendency to believe we're voting for the "lesser of two evils" rather than the best candidate. I often feel this way myself.
What you have to understand about a political race is that the people don't get to know the candidates, not really. For me, it is the most frustrating aspect of politics. All I see is the face on the TV. So when it seems obvious, in your book, that candidate X is a good guy that everyone should vote for, the voters in your book don't have your book to read.
Charisma is incredibly important in a political race. People tend to vote for the guy who looks good on television. Case in point: everyone agrees that FDR could not have been elected today. Pepole have better rationalizations than that they are voting for the more attractive candidate, but they can often amount to things like, "I just trust him more." or "He seems more likeable." No issues, no "flip-flopping", nothing as concrete as all that. And speaking of flip-flopping, you can bet that the more charismatic of the two will have come up with a catchy one or two word quotable snippet to summarize his opponent (whether right or wrong, it's the catchiness and memorableness (that's not a word, is it?) that counts).
Politics is an interesting study in mob decision making. Keep in mind that most people vote for someone because their neighbor or their father or their coworker told them to, especially in a low-profile mayoral campaign. Ironically, I feel that local elections have more of a bearing on my life but they're not publicized that way so most people don't do the research. You don't have to give the voters a particularly good reason to vote for either guy. In all seroiusness, on election day, sometimes people get votes for nothing better than name recognition.
quote:Politics is an interesting study in mob decision making.
Point well made.
I would tend to agree that the "likeableness" factor rates high. It doesn't seem to matter what the candidate looks like, it only matters if people trust him/her.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
