|
Maybe
both candidates have got
the wrong idea.
According to this study,
if you want more votes -
go extreme. Seems,
at least when it comes to
this study,
middle-of-the-road could
mean end-of-the-road for
a candidate.
From
the
University of Southern
California
Extreme
appeal: voters trust
extreme positions more
than moderate ones, study
finds
 Appealing
to middle not best
political strategy
Trying to appear
moderate is not always
the best strategy for
capturing votes during an
election, reveals a new
study. Extreme positions
can build trust among an
electorate, who value
ideological commitment in
times of uncertainty.
"The current political
advantage of the
Republican Party stems
from the ability of its
candidates to develop
'signature ideas.' This
strategy is rewarded even
when the electorate has
ideological
reservations," says
University of Southern
California economist Juan
Carrillo, adding that
this poses a challenge
for the Democrats.
In the current issue
of The Economic Journal,
Carrillo and Micael
Castanheira of the
Université Libre de
Bruxelles (Belgium), show
that voters who are
unsure about the quality
of a policy can be swayed
by indications of
trustworthiness.
As Carrillo explains,
many tend to believe that
a candidate's platforms
should be tailored to
appeal to voters,
particularly swing
voters. Instead, this
research shows that
instead of swinging
voters, candidates should
try to swing ideas by
offering higher-quality
positions that may be
less popular.
In the United States,
holding strong positions
has
already been shown to
work on a few issues that
have an ideological
component, such as
abortion and the death
penalty, Carrillo notes.
"A rational electorate
is reluctant to support
someone who does not
exhibit commitment to
some ideology," Carrillo
says. "Voters rightly
perceive that someone
without ideological
commitment cannot have
developed a valuable
political program. They
reason that, 'If you tell
me what I want to hear,
it probably means that
you don't have any ideas
of your own to share.'"
Carrillo and
Castanheira's paper is an
important challenge to
the widely accepted
median voter theorem. In
the median voter theorem,
voters who are fully
informed will use their
understanding when
casting a ballot,
choosing the platform
that is closest to their
own beliefs. Thus, it
stands to reason that to
attract the majority of
votes, parties should try
to appeal to the majority
of voters.
But, as the
researchers point out, it
is rare for a voter to be
fully informed in real
life. More likely, voters
will have incomplete and
sometimes inaccurate
information about how
left-leaning or
right-leaning stances
actually translate into
high quality proposals
for, say, withdrawing
troops safely or reforms.
This information comes
from the press and other
sources, such as campaign
advertisements.
"To attract a majority
of votes, parties cannot
simply try to appear
'median.' Quite the
contrary," Carrillo says.
"Winning an election is
generally about crafting
a convincing philosophy
that the electorate will
view as superior to that
of the opponents."
The researchers point
to several real-life
examples, including the
1995 Belgian election.
According to the authors,
the VLD – a traditionally
right-wing party – sought
the opinion of voters on
a number of key issues
and pledged to follow
popular will if elected.
The experiment failed.
Four years later, the VLD
returned to a rightist
platform, and their
candidate was elected
prime minister.
Vote 2008 Index
Go to
Know News Index
Back to top
Go to Virginia Greene
Go to
Greene Lite |
