[Lee Yongbeom's Psychology of Happiness] It's Not Always About Voting for Goodness

Published 20 May.2020 16:34(KST)

Even if Everyone Has Voting Rights, Equal Speaking Rights Are Not Guaranteed
The Electoral Responsibility Community Must Bear It... No Use Making Excuses
Voting Based on Unconscious Bias... Must Accept Even If Election Predictions Are Wrong

More than a month has passed since the 21st National Assembly election. Among those dissatisfied with the election results, some even say the country is about to collapse and express a desire to emigrate. This is an overreaction. Such people are those who boast that every time the flaws of the elected candidate become known to the world, they want to cut off the finger that voted for him.

Of course, they did not vote for the elected candidate. Their true intention is to make you, the foolish majority, feel responsible for bringing the situation to this state.

◆Is it really necessary to vote? = Running an election system incurs enormous costs. Citizens also suffer from unbearable stress as they have to watch politicians for years after the election ends. Economists view voting as inefficient. Considering the time spent choosing candidates and traveling to polling stations, the benefits voters gain are unclear compared to the costs incurred.

American psychologist Barry Schwartz gave this example in The Paradox of Choice. Two political scientists ride together to vote. Along the way, they realize they support different candidates. What is the best course of action? It is for both to return home simultaneously and finish their work. Even if both give up voting, it makes no difference.

The election system is the foundation that supports democracy. However, it does not always choose the good. Consider a famous example presented by American sociologist William Graham Sumner (1840?1910) in 1883. A and B set out to draft a bill to help the socially vulnerable X. However, the bill stipulates that C, who is not a party to the matter, must also help X.

William Graham Sumner

Sumner named C, who must help X regardless of his own will, "The forgotten man." In fact, C was not so much forgotten as never considered from the start. If the law proposed by A and B passes by majority vote, C will bear an unwanted obligation.

Friedrich Hayek (1899?1992), a British economist and political philosopher known as the father of conservatism but who wished to be a liberal himself, cited this in Law, Legislation and Liberty. He pointed out the problem with a bill taxing the top 10% of income earners to help the bottom 10%, which 80% support.

The 80% who support the bill are free riders. They bear no obligation themselves but shift the social burden onto the top 10% income earners. Of course, such a law would not pass in a democratic country. This is merely a symbolic analogy illustrating the problems of the voting system.

American philosopher Robert Nozick (1938?2002) gave a more interesting example in Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Imagine a situation where four men propose marriage to one woman. None of the four men have any authority. The right to decide the marriage partner belongs solely to the woman. But is it possible for the five people to vote to decide the woman's marriage partner?

The election system has many problems. Granting everyone the right to vote does not mean equal voice. Also, voting rights do not reflect an individual's urgency. Someone prepared to sacrifice for democracy or whose life is at risk because of the election result can only cast one vote. Moreover, after the election, the elected and I have no relationship. The policies they enact are decided regardless of my will.

◆Why do stupid people win elections? = Sometimes you wonder how such a person got elected. Procedurally, the most perfectly equal system would be a lottery. However, few would be satisfied with selecting leaders by lottery. Leaving the community's future to chance is risky. We maintain the current voting system because no better alternative has been found.

In a democratic society, the entire community must bear all responsibility arising from elections. Excusing yourself by saying you did not vote for the fool is useless. There is no guarantee you are not a fool, and to those in other camps, you are unconditionally a fool.

[Image source=Yonhap News]

People do not choose leaders based on rational judgment. They vote based on affinity for a party, personal relationships, religion, or regionalism. In fact, this tendency is very natural. For hundreds of thousands of years, being connected to power through kinship, regional ties, and networks has been much more advantageous for survival.

The problem is that people still rely on past inertia when voting. There are several reasons why foolish people win elections.

First, we are vulnerable to bandwagon effects. When a candidate seems likely to win, people support them without question. Not because they support the candidate, but because they want to confirm they think like others. People feel psychological stability when they belong to the majority.

Second is the so-called "underdog effect"?the phenomenon where, when an absolute strong candidate exists, people hope the relatively weaker candidate will defeat the strong one. It is natural to feel sympathy for an underdog overcoming adversity. Therefore, candidates often exaggerate or fabricate their success stories. We are vulnerable to stories of people who succeed solely by merit.

Third, people tend to vote for candidates who display excessive confidence. However, such people are more likely to be fools. Fools do not know what they do not know. Therefore, they like to stand in front of others and act boldly.

Fourth is a sense of affinity. When smart people only spout logical arguments, they often provoke rejection. On the contrary, someone who confidently proposes a foolish solution over a drink of soju quickly captivates others. People prefer a pathetic person who tells them what they want to hear over a smart person who tells uncomfortable truths.

Finally, appearance matters. In hunter-gatherer societies living in small communities, leaders’ family backgrounds and childhoods were well known. But today, aside from looks and speech, it is difficult to know personal information.

In 2005, a research team led by American psychologist Alexander Todorov showed participants photos of two rival candidates from U.S. congressional elections between 2000 and 2004 for one second. Then they asked participants to choose whom they wanted to support. The voting results based on photos alone matched actual election results about 70% of the time.

A 2007 study showed similar results. Researchers digitally combined photos of candidates running in eight elections in the U.S., New Zealand, and the U.K. and showed them to students. When asked to choose preferred candidates, the results closely matched actual election outcomes. Appearance had a greater influence than candidates’ policies.

Without prior information, after showing photos of the two candidates for 1 second, the choice of the person they wanted to support matched about 70% with the actual election results.

◆It is my fault = We do not choose candidates rationally but vote relying on unconscious biases. We only mistakenly believe our choices are based on rational judgment. People obsessed with ideology experience peak stress when their preferred candidate loses.

In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, when Donald Trump was elected, a research team interviewed 60 people disappointed by the results and scanned their brains. Forty of them said the election outcome would negatively affect their future lives. Among them, 23% showed signs of depression.

Psychological pain arises from the inability to accept changed reality. If the election result differs from your expectations, it is better to accept that your view is not mainstream. Whatever the outcome, your opinion is not wrong. Just a few more people think differently than you.

If you do not want to accept even that, you can live looking forward to four or five years later. Of course, your expectations may be disappointed then, and the world will demand change from you once again. If you still do not want to change your mind, just wait for the next election.