How inexperienced voters choose a candidate

Would people who use foolish criteria to pick a Presidential candidate pick in the same way a surgeon to cut open their chests, a pilot to fly them through a storm, or a lawyer to keep them out of jail? I had assumed the answer to that is no, but Mort convinced me the answer is probably yes. They are being consistent, not perverse.

Many of us are frustrated that so much of many political campaigns comes down to factors that have no apparent connection to executive competence, substantive expertise, policy proposals, integrity, record of success/failure, and other evidence generally deemed indicative of future performance. Instead, factors such as likeability, shared beliefs, demographic identity, and the general feeling that the candidate is "like me" or "understands me" seem to sway the decisions of vast numbers of voters.

Perhaps that is because these people make few if any "personnel" decisions. Many people don't "select" doctors or other professionals but accept whomever is assigned to them or take the first referral. Many people never have a supervisory position in which they are called upon to choose a candidate or give a performance evaluation. If they have no experience managing people and no sense of how to go about it, picking a Presidential candidate may be more like picking a spouse than any other decision they've ever made.

Comments

[christine]

The problem with this is that these aren't inexperienced voters who chose George Bush because he would be more fun to have a drink with...or Sarah Palin because she is cute. You are being both inaccurate and too kind in your word choice. Furthermore, they want a doctor who makes them feel good, regardless of qualifications. They want a presidential candidate who makes them feel good (and not inferior or threatened by their own stupidity..this leaves us in a very bad position. My brother continues to remind me that the average IQ in America is about 100.This is not an IQ that looks kindly on a smart black man.)

[Skeptic]

No doubt there are many things going on, including the Barbie Snodgrass Effect discussed in this nice Ezra Klein post http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=10&year=2008&base_name=the_rich_mans_populism_of_the on the long article by George Packer in the current New Yorker. When people are stuck in a miserable economic situation for a long time, they can lose hope, and when they lose hope for improvement, they become very risk averse and focus entirely on wanting their situation not to get worse. Similarly, David Brooks has written on the relative pessimism and social isolation of the less educated. I discussed both effects here. http://www.realitybase.org/journal/2008/2/8/clinton-succeeds-edwards-as-champion-of-the-downtrodden-and.html