31st
My Heuristics (this isn’t an essay)
Theory Proof: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/3/8/3/7/p138377_index.html
In political science, the theory of ‘voting cues’ (no one calls it ‘the theory of voting cues’, they call it ‘heuristics’) states that uninformed voters do not require full knowledge of the complex processes of government to make an appropriate voting decision. The theory states that a series of cues, or heuristics, are required by said voters to make a decision that would accurately align them with the party that best represents their fundamental concerns. This theory is really funny because you don’t need to perceive the probability of the truth of it’s entirety to realize the contradictory implications of ‘voting heuristics’.
Other than the fact that this theory is based on the ultimate unfounded presumption that democracy makes in considering the congregate opinions of the masses as being most closely associated with the truth, we can find a few other flaws with the implication that voting heuristics will result in a decision reflective of a specific voter’s fundamental concerns. HOly shit that was a long sentence. I’m much too lazy to simplify it.
These flaws being:
- The assumption that an individual’s fundamental concerns will not be manipulated by societal/media influence;
- The assumption that specific voting cues will accurately represent the parties that they exhibit. For example, an individual might consider racial or religious cues, (which are not proven to have any correlation to the legislative/governing ability of the candidate) as being of higher significance than policy cues.
- The assumption that uninformed citizens are mentally capable of aligning their fundamental concerns with the proposed complex policies of a specific party.
If you’re confused, I might need to clarify that my thesis statement isn’t that I don’t think people use heuristics, I’m just saying that they don’t work. I explain why above.
Here are some articles that provide evidence that can be used to bolster my argument:
http://prq.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/39/1/118 (on further examination of this article, ‘not really’.)
Here are some articles that provide evidence that can be used against my argument:
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/4/3/2/9/p143291_index.html
That’s pretty much a summary of my shallow analysis of the obvious flaws of the ‘theory of voting cues’. However, for fun, regardless of how improbable I’ve deemed this theory, I’ve decided to revert back to the last sentence of my first paragraph and “perceive the probability of the truth of the theory”. To do this I need a sample, and the only sample I have is myself:
I try to recall a time where I was incredibly uninformed with regards to even the most basic issues. This must have been when I was younger. Let’s not go back too far, to the fifth grade where I was too uninformed, and my political persuasions were based solely on those of my parents. I recall a time where I was interested in the ethics of government and the basis of politics, a time where my mind was being made up by CUES. Did these cues direct me to the same party that I now find most allegiance with?
Coincidentally the answer is yes, because it so happened that my mind managed to conclude that conservatism is illogical through the following indirect methods: The opinions that are held most vehemently in conservatism are very generally and obviously contradictory. We can analyze these contradictions by looking only at the cues.
Cues:
- Freedom and Equality of every individual are pertinent.
- Laissez-faire policies best promote freedom; financial limitations on an individual greatly limit the freedom of the individual.
- Military Spending is good because we need to keep Americans safe, and maintain peace around the world;
- Health care spending is bad because American’s should have a minimal number of personal financial limitations;
- Gays shouldn’t marry because Jesus said so.
- Religious base.
- Immigrants take our jobs, we want job security.
Obvious Contradictions:
- When combined, cues 2,3 and 4 cannot make sense. Assuming cue 2 were true, cue 3 would imply that financial limitations on individuals should be avoided in all cases except for those in which the safety of citizens would be compromised. If this were true, cue 4 could not make any sense whatsoever, due to that Health care spending would also fall in this exception, and therefore one would expect (from cues 2 and 3) that conservatives would support health-care. This is because Health Care, statistically, is more of an issue that is dealing with the safety of citizens than is the maintenance of the military. So if conservatives are willing to spend money on the military to keep citizens safe, why aren’t they willing to spend money on health-care to keep citizens safe?
- Cues 1 and 5 contradict, due to that in order for them to be combined, one would have to assume that the case of sexuality is an exception to the freedom clause. The basis of this is identified in the 6th cue, which would show us that the reason for this exception is that religion is of higher priority than freedom, or that what the bible says is of higher importance than what the constitution says. I don’t even want to begin to start stating all the ways in which the bible conservative principles contradict eachother.
- I’m too lazy and I’m explaining the obvious anyways, so I’ll just let you realize in a good 2-3 seconds how cue 7 is contradicted.
My basic point is that this mental route is not hard to follow, it’s so fucking simple that I might even start believing in this theory of ‘voting cues’. GOOD NIGHT
