Voting, fast and slow

Politicians think they know better but voters are trying to tell them otherwise

I admit that the title of the blog is a bit nonsensical. After all, voting does not have a speed. It refers instead to the speed at which we choose who to vote for and paraphrases the title of a recent influential book “Thinking, Fast and Slow”. One of the main concepts in the book is how some decisions are made quickly and instinctively, while other decisions take longer with more thought. It seems as if the action of voting has become faster as people vote with their gut. Voters have, as a result, been blamed for making bad choices, but they should not be blamed when none of the options are appealing.

For this to all make sense, I should give a bit of background about the book. “Thinking, Fast and Slow” brings together a wide range of studies on our thinking patterns. Fast thinking is the decisions we made almost automatically and are often based on emotions such as fear or hunger. Taking more time to think things over sounds better but is not always optimal. We are constantly called on to make decisions and contemplating every option would leave us mentally drained. So our brains have developed to respond without much thought to most of the things we are confronted with in day-to-day life.

For a long time, we didn’t even have to think much about voting. Society was essentially split into those who voted for either the left or right, and these choices did not change much over time for individuals. Voters followed along with what their leaders in government would tell them would be best for the country. The policies of mainstream parties involved different version of restraint now for rewards later. Economic growth in the past had made this trade off seem worthwhile, and sound theory was enough to convince anyone who wanted to think it through.

This no longer seems to be the case. The world has changed in ways that mainstream politicians have yet to catch up with. More of the gains from economic growth tend to be going to the well-off, while the loss of manufacturing and clerical work has eroded the middle class. Governments, as much as they would not like to admit it, have lost power relative to business that has more weight to throw around now they operate on a global scale. It takes a degree of faith to continue to wait for a better world that increasingly seems unlikely on the current path.

Populism does away with complicated trade-offs and instead offers up simple solutions that appeal on the emotive level. Mistrust of people that don’t look like us makes it easy for politicians to blame foreigners for any problems. Increasing inequality with growing concentration of wealth challenges our sense of right and wrong. And when the world seems against us, talk of “taking back control” appeals. This call to arms is even more attractive when the basis of these policies come across as so instinctive.

This makes the choice of voting for a mainstream or populist party like choosing between a healthy salad or a burger with fries. The choice is being bias toward burgers after a history of eating salads has resulted in few if any of the health benefits. Even the health conscious among us would be tempted with a switch in diets to the more satisfying option. Going along with our gut feelings also feels good, rather than going along with what we are supposed to believe.

It is no surprise then that many choose to vote fast due to distrust in what we have been told in the past as well as an erosion of hope for a better future. People who have voted for the short-term “feel-good” option have been criticized, but the economically neglected should not be blamed for pushing back politically. The onus should fall instead on those that argue for an open global world to show that it can benefit everyone.