6 Things You Won't Believe Can Brainwash You On Election Day
When a politician tells us that he'll stick to his beliefs when in office, we usually murmur something about corporate interests and "the fat cats in City Hall." Well, it turns out that politicians are the ones who should be cynical about us. Science is finding that some pretty weird stuff can make us forget what we stand for on Election Day. At least the politicians are being swayed by briefcases full of cash. With us, it can be things as simple as ...

Ever since JFK out-sexied Nixon during the first-ever televised presidential debates, looks have mattered in politics. Studies have shown that more attractive politicians get greater press coverage and more air time and of course, the best thing you can do if you are a lady politician is hit the gym. But looks also matter in ways you might not expect when it comes to which politicians people vote for, and being the most attractive isn't always the most important thing.

Unless you're a woman. We really can't emphasis that enough.
When it comes to men, being fit and attractive is helpful but nothing compared with being overweight. Apparently, voters see more rotund male candidates as more trustworthy and even more inspiring than their thinner competition. Other very detailed studies have shown that we tend to favor men with specific facial characteristics, which basically boils down to voting for more distinguished-looking gentlemen as opposed to "baby-faced" candidates.

With the obvious exception of Senator Giggles here.
It doesn't even matter what the candidates' policies are. Studies show that when people are presented with pictures of politicians for even a second and know absolutely nothing about the politicians' beliefs or what party they are in, certain candidates will always come out on top. And since that's the first thing you find out about a candidate, some guys are coming from behind to begin with.
According to a study at MIT this phenomenon isn't limited by where you vote. People in different countries continually find certain candidates more trustworthy and electable based on their looks, no matter how different their cultures. And as long as those politicians are guys, it is the chubby yet distinguished-looking ones every time.

Taft couldn't lose.

Anyone who has voted knows that the government isn't picky about what constitutes a "public polling place." The motto seems to be: If it would be considered slightly below average for a weekly bingo game, it's good enough for the linchpin of democracy. On Election Day, you might find yourself voting anywhere from a supermarket parking lot to some dude's garage -- as long as it can fit some curtained cubicles and a couple of old ladies making sure you don't cheat off your neighbor.

Look! Democracy!
In addition to making you feel worse about America, the location where you cast your ballot might actually be brainwashing you with subtle environmental factors you don't even notice. For instance, studies have shown that if your local polling place is a school, you will vote yes for more school initiatives on the ballot, especially if there are teachers or students nearby. Using exit polling data, the studies found that this was the case even if the measures were not something the voters would typically support.

If they allowed crowded airplanes to act as polling places, everyone would be pro-choice.
It's difficult to get too outraged at those fat cat public school students who tricked you into paying for new text books. But a more recent study found that churches -- which are the most common polling locations in America -- can make you turn in a ballot that is more conservative than your actual beliefs. The study found that people casting their ballots in churches were more likely to vote against propositions supporting gay marriage and abortion rights, even if those votes conflicted with their beliefs.
Note to marijuana enthusiasts: As much as the voters enjoy your Peter Tosh cover band's "Legalize It" charity concert and space-cookie bake sale, if you really want to make a difference, you should lobby to move the voting booths out back behind the school and church dumpster. That should jog a few memories in the right direction.

School and church dumpsters: Covering up the smell since 1963.

Not only do Americans pay more attention to BCS polls than the ones pertaining to the electoral process, the outcome of college football games can determine how we vote in the elections that actually matter. Even if you're not that into football, if you live in a town that identifies itself with a particular team, scientists say that whether that team wins or loses can swing the vote by up to 5 percent. According to one study, this phenomenon significantly improved President Obama's approval rating during the 2009 NCAA Basketball Tournament.

On the other hand, the fact that he thinks football is played like a trumpet doesn't help.
To get an idea of how this works, let's look at the state of Nebraska. On Saturday, Oct. 30, three days before the 2010 elections, 81,067 Nebraskans traveled to Lincoln to watch their team take on sixth ranked Missouri. To put that in perspective, if the Cornhuskers' Memorial Stadium was a city, for a few hours on game day it would be the third-largest in the entire state.

Pictured: Basically everyone in Nebraska.
When the guys in red pulled off an upset, a healthy dose of dopamine started rocketing around the brains of a sizable portion of the state's population. Scientists have found that the dopamine delivered by a win can last days, and it's not difficult to imagine how it can be contagious. The boss might be the only person in the office who's into football, but his good mood on Monday puts everyone else in a good mood. The entire office goes home and puts the rest of their families in a good mood. Pretty soon, the entire state of Nebraska is walking into the voting booth with their heads in a giant golden cloud of dopamine.

So this is fine, but secretly dosing voters with MDMA is somehow "wrong"?
And this is where one guy gets to surf into office on the back of a bunch of athletes he's never met. While a statewide high doesn't favor Democrats or Republicans, it does make the people of that state less likely to fire someone, or in electoral politics, to vote against an incumbent running for re-election. Dopamine also makes us more likely to feel good about the state of the world. In a variety of studies, scientists found in such situations people were up to 5 percent more likely to vote for incumbent candidates, with the variation depending not on how good a job the incumbent did, but on how big an upset the game was.








"Note to marijuana enthusiasts: As much as the voters enjoy your Peter Tosh cover band's "Legalize It" charity concert and space-cookie bake sale, if you really want to make a difference, you should lobby to move the voting booths out back behind the school and church dumpster." +++++++
ReplyBIG THUMBS UP for the Peter Tosh reference. Thanks for knowing and showing that there are more reggae artists than those with the last name Marley. Even IN the Wailers, there were more reggae singers than just one with the last name Marley...
Damn you, Cracked! You're making me even MORE cynical in regards to humanity!
ReplyHere in Australia it's compulsory to vote and I think it's a terrible idea. It means you have a massive portion of the population that is undecided, unaware and only voting because they have to. And these people are far more likely to be swayed by hollow or simple promises like "I will lower taxes", or indeed by seemingly-irrelevant circumstances like who is first on the ballot. In the US, people consciously choose to vote which means they should be setting out with a candidate in mind before they step into the polling booth. I like this natural-selection-esque voting system: only those who know enough and care enough get to determine who runs the country.
ReplyIf people don't want to vote they can hand in an empty ballot in Australia. It's compulsory showing up, not really compulsory voting.
I agree in theory that it would be better if people only voted if they actually knew and cared about policy, but I imagine that in any situation where voting is optional, you're going to get stupid people who have blind belief in a certain party, who won't think about policy, who will vote anyway.
To me, the first spot on the ballot should belong to "Tick this spot and your vote doesn't count". Who knows? "Tick this spot and your vote doesn't count" might even win an election!
ReplyLast!
ReplyI've voted in both a church and a school and have found that neither influenced me to vote in any particular way. Was this talking about super local elections?
ReplyThe only time I've ever felt the "blank state" feeling when voting was voting for class president. "Do I want more parties? I think I'll vote for more parties. Oh, less recess more lunch? Hmm, well it was rainy. I'll vote for less recess".
If you can't recognize the difference between an effect on an individual and a population trend, well then in your own logic I wish you had the genes that made it impossible for your dumb ass to vote.
not to sound racist or to take any political side with this comment, I simply just really wonder how many people voted for Obama STRICTLY because they liked his hip hop song? (y'know, the "OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA..." song)
Reply Hide All See All 5 RepliesWhat rhymes with obama? Except maybe "yo moma".
No drama.
Hoe palma
There was a song?
Not to belabor the obvious, but people voted for Obama because he's black. Period, end of sentence. Even those who were stupid enough to believe him when he promised "change" did so because he's black; no other reason. The man is a product of one of the dirtiest political machines in one of the most corrupt states in the Union. He represents Business as Usual like no other candidate.
BTW, I haven't bothered to vote for anyone since 1988. Not out of apathy, but out of disgust at the quality of the candidates and the abysmal standards to which Americans now hold their public servants.
If you haven't decided for sure who you are voting for by the time you get in your car to go vote, just do us all a favor and stay home.
Replyobama is tough, he's lippin the ball to sense that it is in fact organic and not a mineral, and also notin it's pretty f****n hard. ;p awkward too, you're allowed to take the ball away from the other team any time, but they can punch you. also full sprint into coiled axis strike, they call it a 'tackle' lol , to practice run into a wall at full speed. if you go thru the wall, congrats you play jr high football ;p
ReplyI guess these are more reasons we need to be very, very critical of our own motivations. :)
Replyyeah my whole family votes, ive voted a few times but never for the president. maybe its just as simple as me being lazy, apathetic, and jaded. whoops.
ReplyI think it sucks how anyone can allow any factor outside of the candidate's record, integrity, and position to influence whom they vote for. The ones "predestined" to stay home because, "no candidate is worth it," are just lazy seeing how they can write-in whomever they choose.
ReplyThis whole "emotional vote" and "popular vote" nonsense most U.S. citizens employ is starting to piss off those of us who research the candidates and attempt to make an informed decision.
you fail to note that you are a person and thus are effected by these things to a degree as much as everyone else.
my fking phone hates me. I now cease attempting to comment due to being redirected to articles I didn't intend to reply to, thereby making me look like more of an idiot than I already am.
ReplyIf Florida were in a single time zone, as California is, Bush would have won by a much larger margin. The networks essentially called the lection for Bush, while the Florida Panhandle was still voting. Teh panhandle is also the most Republican part of the state.
ReplyWhich reminds me, we should not be allowing the media to manipulate elections by calling them before voting is complete. It drives down turnout, and is often wrong.
Amen on both counts.
good point... all news channels should just play one very long Benny Hill chase scene (with the wacky horn music and everything)on repeat until all the votes are in
"Well, if Nov. 2, 1960, hadn't been an uncommonly clear day across the country, John F. Kennedy might still be alive today."
ReplyThat's one helluva leap in logic...
If it was raining, he wouldn't have had the top down...
he wouldn't have been elected and thus had very little reasonm to be shot for his political policies...he'd still be dead of several other things, like STD's and liver damage, but still it woulda been different.
Well, in Brazil voting is mandatory, so having a voting gene or not is irrelevant. Although the non-voting portion may be more likely to vote "blank", which is kind of equivalent, except you have to go out on a rainy day and put up with a damn long line to not vote.
ReplyThis is why allowing normal people to vote is a bad idea. I rather like Heinlein's idea that only people who have completed a term of national public service should be allowed to vote.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesSaying that this was Heinlein's idea, while correct, would seem to imply to some that it was what he actually believed. Just because he used it as a plot device doesn't mean that we can know whether or not it was something he thought should be incorporated into reality.
Well considering Heinlein wrote several non-fiction works in which he explained that this WAS his belief, it seems like a short leap. It's also a brilliant idea. The biggest problem facing America is the fact that people who give nothing to the country but take everything from it have a voice.
That's too extreme... What about disabled folk?
It makes much more sense to allow only those who own property and pay taxes to have a vote if we're gonna start limiting who gets a say. I mean, they are the people with the greatest interest in the country itself.
This just confirms that the average person is an idiot.
ReplyAnd you are one of them. Unless it's you, Mr. Hawking.
the last one was nonsense, identical twins are more likely to share ALL their behaviours.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesBecause behaviors come from genes. They have the exact same DNA.
No its not. @thegreatcheesedemon No they don't.
Er... don't they?
yes, they do
Voting is way more influential in props and local matters...pretty much anything but the Presidential generals really.
Reply