Coventry (UK), British voters have been more volatile than ever in recent years. The 2015 and 2017 elections saw the highest number of voters switch parties in modern history. And current polling suggests we're about to see more of this.
Understanding what goes on in people's minds when they are making decisions helps us understand why certain political messages appeal to them and why they might decide to switch parties.
Political scientist Pedersen talks about instability, named after the distinguished Danish scholar Mogens N. Named after Pedersen.There's a forbidden mathematical equation for this, but it all amounts to "the net change within the electoral party system as a result of individual vote transfers". In plain English, volatility is simply the number of people switching parties in an election. In Britain in the late 1960s, the Pedersen index was just over 10%, now it is closer to 40%.
There has been much discussion about the increasing use of social media and its impact on election results. A recent study by Swiss election expert, Professor Hanspeter Cressey, explains that "a steady stream of reasoning and voting signals allows voters to make enlightened choices that are consistent with their preferences".This may be true, but a recent study found that politicians post more on social media during election campaigns, but the number of posts with policy content overall is less, not more. Polling Brain
Another interesting development in electoral studies is that we are now able to use social neuroscience methods to understand voting behavior.
Over the past decade, neuroscience has enabled us to identify the parts of the brain that become active when viewing political advertisements. These results show that most people are driven by fear and emotion rather than rational argument in election campaigns. In practice, this means that voters are more sensitive to messages that emphasize the negative rather than the positive. .The researchers found that negative images and statements about products led to increased activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is also associated with decision making.
For example, negative information about a brand of cola made people more likely to buy a competing brand. However, when this experiment was repeated with political parties instead of soft drinks, the negative effect was three times greater. Negative political advertising works, and now we have the fMRI scans to prove it.
Politics is an open battle, and our brains reflect it.Evolution has conditioned us to be driven by fear whenever we are in danger. We want to survive above all else. By playing on our fear and anger, those who create election slogans are – perhaps deliberately – creating messages that trigger parts of the brain associated with revenge and suppressed anger. , which also includes the so-called anterior cingulate cortex (or ACC), which lies deeper. The anterior part of the fissure that separates the two cerebral hemispheres. So, if I'm angry that Rishi Sunak hasn't reduced the NHS waiting list, it's possible that the ACC has gone into overdrive.Older people – who vote in higher numbers – are of particular interest here. This is because as we age, we become more sensitive to activating the so-called dorsolateral prefrontal cortex – an area of the brain associated with attention.
It is unlikely that Rishi Sunak deeply understands the nuances of neuropolitics, but his strategy is consistent with what we know from social neuroscience. His emphasis on the need to "stick to the plan" and not gamble on the opposition appeals to people with highly sensitive dorsolateral prefrontal cortices—namely the older voter group most in need of convincing. But more broadly, all ages People with ADHD have a stronger tendency to activate the amygdala – a part of the brain associated with fear.Very rarely do we activate parts of the brain associated with moral evaluation, such as the so-called ventromedial prefrontal cortex.
It's no surprise that the two main parties in the British election are focusing on fear and caution. Perhaps Machiavelli got it right when he observed that voters are "danger averse"?
Appealing to this fear, we see Rishi Sunak warning repeatedly in a very unspecific way that the world is more "dangerous" than ever. And clearly realizing that the reaction to promises of voter protection Both parties are labeling the policies as a "triple lock", whether on pensions or the nuclear deterrent.
era of economic voting
A second rich source of academic research on why voters change their minds relates to the knowledge that since the 1970s or so, voters have had a greater tendency to base their decisions on macroeconomic performance.Thus, political parties are blamed for leading to significant financial recessions. This explains why the Conservatives lost in 1992 and Labor lost in 1979. Voters also change their minds based on recent economic performance, even if the economic downturn is beyond the government's control, as was the case for former Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath, who responded to the 1973 oil crisis (in response to the war in the Middle East). Power is lost after the cause arises).
Once a government is associated with economic ills – rising mortgage rates, the cost of living and so on – they are blamed even when the economy improves.
The current government's slogan that the plan is working may be economically sound, but history shows that it will not stop voters from switching parties.(talk) NSANSA
Understanding what goes on in people's minds when they are making decisions helps us understand why certain political messages appeal to them and why they might decide to switch parties.
Political scientist Pedersen talks about instability, named after the distinguished Danish scholar Mogens N. Named after Pedersen.There's a forbidden mathematical equation for this, but it all amounts to "the net change within the electoral party system as a result of individual vote transfers". In plain English, volatility is simply the number of people switching parties in an election. In Britain in the late 1960s, the Pedersen index was just over 10%, now it is closer to 40%.
There has been much discussion about the increasing use of social media and its impact on election results. A recent study by Swiss election expert, Professor Hanspeter Cressey, explains that "a steady stream of reasoning and voting signals allows voters to make enlightened choices that are consistent with their preferences".This may be true, but a recent study found that politicians post more on social media during election campaigns, but the number of posts with policy content overall is less, not more. Polling Brain
Another interesting development in electoral studies is that we are now able to use social neuroscience methods to understand voting behavior.
Over the past decade, neuroscience has enabled us to identify the parts of the brain that become active when viewing political advertisements. These results show that most people are driven by fear and emotion rather than rational argument in election campaigns. In practice, this means that voters are more sensitive to messages that emphasize the negative rather than the positive. .The researchers found that negative images and statements about products led to increased activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is also associated with decision making.
For example, negative information about a brand of cola made people more likely to buy a competing brand. However, when this experiment was repeated with political parties instead of soft drinks, the negative effect was three times greater. Negative political advertising works, and now we have the fMRI scans to prove it.
Politics is an open battle, and our brains reflect it.Evolution has conditioned us to be driven by fear whenever we are in danger. We want to survive above all else. By playing on our fear and anger, those who create election slogans are – perhaps deliberately – creating messages that trigger parts of the brain associated with revenge and suppressed anger. , which also includes the so-called anterior cingulate cortex (or ACC), which lies deeper. The anterior part of the fissure that separates the two cerebral hemispheres. So, if I'm angry that Rishi Sunak hasn't reduced the NHS waiting list, it's possible that the ACC has gone into overdrive.Older people – who vote in higher numbers – are of particular interest here. This is because as we age, we become more sensitive to activating the so-called dorsolateral prefrontal cortex – an area of the brain associated with attention.
It is unlikely that Rishi Sunak deeply understands the nuances of neuropolitics, but his strategy is consistent with what we know from social neuroscience. His emphasis on the need to "stick to the plan" and not gamble on the opposition appeals to people with highly sensitive dorsolateral prefrontal cortices—namely the older voter group most in need of convincing. But more broadly, all ages People with ADHD have a stronger tendency to activate the amygdala – a part of the brain associated with fear.Very rarely do we activate parts of the brain associated with moral evaluation, such as the so-called ventromedial prefrontal cortex.
It's no surprise that the two main parties in the British election are focusing on fear and caution. Perhaps Machiavelli got it right when he observed that voters are "danger averse"?
Appealing to this fear, we see Rishi Sunak warning repeatedly in a very unspecific way that the world is more "dangerous" than ever. And clearly realizing that the reaction to promises of voter protection Both parties are labeling the policies as a "triple lock", whether on pensions or the nuclear deterrent.
era of economic voting
A second rich source of academic research on why voters change their minds relates to the knowledge that since the 1970s or so, voters have had a greater tendency to base their decisions on macroeconomic performance.Thus, political parties are blamed for leading to significant financial recessions. This explains why the Conservatives lost in 1992 and Labor lost in 1979. Voters also change their minds based on recent economic performance, even if the economic downturn is beyond the government's control, as was the case for former Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath, who responded to the 1973 oil crisis (in response to the war in the Middle East). Power is lost after the cause arises).
Once a government is associated with economic ills – rising mortgage rates, the cost of living and so on – they are blamed even when the economy improves.
The current government's slogan that the plan is working may be economically sound, but history shows that it will not stop voters from switching parties.(talk) NSANSA
