Divided We Vote

     I have recently noticed a number of AIS blog posts concerned with election factionalism - that is, the way people tend to pick a political party and vote for it, come hell or high water or an inferior candidate winding up in the White House. The question, usually lacking in an answer, is "Why?" Why would anyone allow others to choose their president? What could possibly be so attractive about this mindlessness, in a country that prides itself on individualism and free thought?

     I discovered one theory in Influence, by Robert Cialdini. In once chapter, titled "Commitment and Consistency", he observes that "once we have made a choice or taken a stand, we will encounter... pressures to behave consistently with that commitment" (57). In other words, when someone identifies themselves as Democrat or Republican, they are pushed towards voting Left or Right. When done to a moderate degree, this is logical: any given political party has general ideas, such as more government, less government, gun rights, minority rights, et cetera ad infinitum, that match the beliefs of those who identify with them. There is no issue with party allegiance and loyalty, in general.

     In individual cases, though, problems arise. Typically, there will be some characteristic of the party's candidate that breaks with what voters believe. I know staunch Republicans who hated the idea of Bush getting a second term; I know zealous Democrats who wouldn't vote Obama this year if you paid them. And they could be reasoning from flawed concepts -  Obamacare probably won't destroy the world on December 21st, 2012 - but if you play to the party line, and don't think out an individual choice, then you are surrendering a pillar of American values: the right to choose your government.