In today's times when there are a plethora of political parties and leaders in the reckoning, it indeed becomes difficult to vote for a particular party or leader. In this regard, it becomes useful if the voters are able to associate with the party or leader in terms of any association which helps them to make the decision. How crucial such short-cuts be?
It depends on what the candidate is mobilizing and in which context.
The experimental literature (McDermott, 2009) has been testing this short-cuts. In some cases such as Brazil, Boas (
There are many such heuristics in use at both the party and candidate levels. For example, some voters won't vote for 3rd parties, some want to divide votes among parties, others would prefer not to all else being equal, etc.
Then you have factors relative to candidates' gender, religion, ethnicity, all manner of potential drivers, but they are often applied in combination thresholds -- for example, a female might be OK but a lesbian a bridge too far, but a gay guy still OK, etc. unless he's an atheist...
The single factor demographic thresholds are gradually fading in more progressive communities as they are no longer as socially acceptable, but litmus tests from the belief standpoint then take over -- won't vote for someone who openly favors banning abortion or building the pipeline, or might take one or the other but not both. Since platforms are more universally available thanks to the Internet, combinations of heuristics that are more complex are more likely to be in play.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude