|
1
|
- In his reflective moments even
the most experienced politician senses a nagging curiosity about why
people vote as they do.
- His power and his position depend
upon the outcome of the mysterious rites we perform as opposing
candidates harangue the multitudes who finally march to the polls to
prolong the rule of their champion, to thrust him, ungratefully, back
into the void of private life, or to raise to eminence a new tribune of
the people.
|
|
2
|
- What kinds of appeals enable a candidate to win the favor of the great
god, The People?
- What circumstances move voters to shift their preferences in this
direction or that?
- What clever propaganda tactic or slogan led to this result? What
mannerism of oratory or style of rhetoric produced another outcome?
- What band of electors rallied to this candidate to save the day for him?
- What policy of state attracted the devotion of another bloc of voters?
What action repelled a third sector of the electorate?
|
|
3
|
- The victorious candidate may regard his success as vindication of his
beliefs about why voters vote as they do.
- And he may regard the swing of the vote to him as indubitably a response
to the campaign positions he took, as an indication of the acuteness of
his intuitive estimates of the mood of the people, and as a ringing
manifestation of the esteem in which he is held by a discriminating
public
|
|
4
|
- It can be a mischievous error to assume, because a candidate wins, that
a majority of the electorate shares his views on public questions,
approves his past actions, or has specific expectations about his future
conduct.
- Nor does victory establish that the candidate's campaign strategy, his
image, his television style, or his fearless stand against cancer and
polio turned the trick.
|
|
5
|
- The election returns establish only that a winner attracted a majority
of votes--assuming the existence of a modicum of rectitude in election
administration. They tell us precious little about why the plurality was
his.
|
|
6
|
- For a glaringly obvious reason, electoral victory cannot be regarded as
necessarily a popular ratification of a candidate's outlook.
- The voice of the people is but an echo. The output of an echo chamber
bears an inevitable and invariable relation to the input. As candidates
and parties clamor for attention and vie for popular support, the
people's verdict can be no more than a selective reflection from among
the alternatives and outlooks presented to them.
|
|
7
|
- The picture of the voter that emerges from a combination of the folklore
of practical politics and the findings of the new electoral studies is
not a pretty one.
- It is not a portrait of citizens moving to considered decision as they
play their solemn role of making and unmaking governments.
|
|
8
|
- The older tradition from practical politics may regard the voter as an
erratic and irrational fellow susceptible to manipulation by skilled
humbugs.
- One need not live through many campaigns to observe politicians, even
successful politicians, who act as though they regarded the people as
manageable fools.
|
|
9
|
- Nor does a heroic conception of the voter emerge from the new analyses
of electoral behavior.
- They can be added up to a conception of voting not as a civic decision
but as an almost purely deterministic act.
- Given knowledge of certain characteristics of a voter—his occupation,
his residence, his religion, his national origin, and perhaps certain of
his attributes—one can predict with a high probability the direction of
his vote. The actions of persons are made to appear to be only
predictable and automatic responses to campaign stimuli.
|
|
10
|
- Most findings of the analysts of voting never travel beyond the circle
of the technicians; the popularizers, though, give wide currency to the
most bizarre—and most dubious--theories of electoral behavior.
- Public-relations experts share in the process of dissemination as they
sell their services to politicians (and succeed in establishing that
politicians are sometimes as gullible as businessmen). Reporters pick up
the latest psychological secret from campaign managers and spread it
through a larger public.
|
|
11
|
- In short, theories of how voters behave acquire importance not because
of their effects on voters, who may proceed blithely unaware of them.
- They gain significance because of their effects, both potentially and in
reality, on candidates and other political leaders.
- If leaders believe the route to victory is by projection of images and
cultivation of styles rather than by advocacy of policies to cope with
the problems of the country, they will project images and cultivate
styles to the neglect of the substance of politics
|
|
12
|
- [My] perverse and unorthodox argument. . .is that voters are
not fools. To be sure, many individual voters act in odd ways indeed;
yet in the large the electorate behaves about as rationally and
responsibly as we should expect, given the clarity of the alternatives
presented to it and the character of the information available to it.
- In American presidential campaigns of recent decades the portrait of the
American electorate that develops from the data is not one of an
electorate straitjacketed by social determinants or moved by
subconscious urges triggered by devilishly skillful propagandists.
- It is rather one of an electorate moved by concern about central and
relevant questions of public policy, of governmental performance, and of
executive personality.
|