Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Face value—Study shows that low-information voters are most likely to be swayed by…appearances.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 03:15 PM
Original message
Face value—Study shows that low-information voters are most likely to be swayed by…appearances.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/face-value-voting-0718.html

Face value

Study shows that low-information voters are most likely to be swayed by candidates’ appearances.

Peter Dizikes, MIT News Office

July 18, 2011

The looks of political candidates are a key factor influencing voters, a phenomenon identified by a number of scholars in recent years. Now, a new study by MIT political scientists adds to this body of research by detailing which types of citizens are most influenced by candidate appearances, and why: The tendency is most prevalent among low-information voters who watch a lot of television.

Using data from the 2006 U.S. Senate and governors’ races, the study shows that for every 10-point increase in the advantage a candidate has when rated by voters on his or her looks, there will be a nearly 5 percent increase in the vote for that candidate by the uninformed voters who are most firmly planted on their couches. Yet that same advantage in looks is worth only about a 1 percent increase among low-information voters who watch little television.

“It’s not that this effect influences all voters exactly the same way,” says Chappell Lawson, an associate professor of political science at MIT and a co-author of the study. “Voters who watch a lot of television but don’t really know much about the candidates, besides how they look, are particularly susceptible.”

Lawson and Gabriel Lenz, also an associate professor of political science at MIT, detail the results http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00511.x/pdf">in a new paper, “Looking the Part: Television Leads Less Informed Citizens to Vote Based on Candidates’ Appearance,” published this month in the American Journal of Political Science.

Refresh | +4 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. I thought this was settled by the Kennedy - Nixon debates.
The first televised debates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Well, that, and it helps to have some late reporting precincts in Chicago
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I think that's a myth as well. At worst, Mayor Daley was better at vote fraud
than the Republicans running districts down in Southern Illinois. Others have claimed he didn't change any votes, just held his counts until all the other returns were in to ensure that the districts down in Southern Illinois didn't know how much to pad their numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. “At worst, Mayor Daley was better at vote fraud”
So, what you’re saying is, vote fraud is acceptable? (You know, if everyone is doin’ it?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
HubertHeaver Donating Member (430 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Not a good idea to trust Wikipedia on anything Republican.
As to the 1960 election, Mike Royko dealt with this in his book about the Mayor,"Boss". A partial recount was performed in Cook County. While the vote total numbers for the national election did change, the changes did not exceed the statistical bounds of chance so the recount was stopped.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. How about Slate?
http://www.slate.com/id/91350/


A recount did wind up changing the winner in one state: Hawaii. On Dec. 28, a circuit court judge ruled that the state—originally called Kennedy's but awarded to Nixon after auditing errors emerged—belonged to Kennedy after all. Nixon's net gain: -3 electoral votes.

The GOP's failure to prove fraud doesn't mean, of course, that the election was clean. That question remains unsolved and unsolvable. But what's typically left out of the legend is that multiple election boards saw no reason to overturn the results. Neither did state or federal judges. Neither did an Illinois special prosecutor in 1961. And neither have academic inquiries into the Illinois case (both a 1961 study by three University of Chicago professors and http://www.slate.com/id/91350/sidebar/91355/">more recent research by political scientist Edmund Kallina concluded that whatever fraud existed wasn't substantial enough to alter the election).

On the other hand, some fraud clearly occurred in Cook County. At least three people were sent to jail for election-related crimes, and 677 others were indicted before being acquitted by Judge John M. Karns, a Daley crony. Many of the allegations involved practices that wouldn't be detected by a recount, leading the conservative Chicago Tribune, among others, to conclude that "once an election has been stolen in Cook County, it stays stolen." What's more, according to journalist Seymour Hersh, a former Justice Department prosecutor who heard tapes of FBI wiretaps from the period believed that Illinois was rightfully Nixon's. Hersh also has written that J. Edgar Hoover believed Nixon actually won the presidency but in deciding to follow normal procedures and refer the FBI's findings to the attorney general—as of Jan. 20, 1961, Robert F. Kennedy—he effectively buried the case.

Another man, too, believed Nixon was robbed: Nixon. At a 1960 Christmas party, he was heard greeting guests, "We won but they stole it from us." Nixon nursed the grudge for years, and when he was criticized for his Watergate crimes he would cite the Kennedys' misdeeds as precedent. He may have felt JFK's supposed theft entitled him to cheat in 1972. It's an interesting hypothetical: If no pall had been cast over the 1960 election, would Watergate have happened?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. do you know why Nixon didn't challenge the results in Illinois?
Edited on Mon Jul-18-11 07:18 PM by provis99
Because his own cronies were conducting massive election fraud in California in the same election.

It was rather infamously called "ratfucking".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-11 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Why do you say he didn't challenge the results in Illinois?
http://www.slate.com/id/91350/


More to the point, while Nixon publicly pooh-poohed a challenge, his allies did dispute the results—aggressively. The New York Herald Tribune's Earl Mazo, a friend and biographer of Nixon's, recounted http://www.slate.com/id/91350/sidebar/91352/">a dozen-odd fishy incidents alleged by Republicans in Illinois and Texas. Largely due to Mazo's reporting, the charges gained wide acceptance.

But it wasn't just Mazo who made a stink. The press went into a brief frenzy in the weeks after the election. Most important, the Republican Party made a veritable crusade of undoing the results. Even if they ultimately failed, party leaders figured, they could taint Kennedy's victory, claim he had no mandate for his agenda, galvanize the rank and file, and have a winning issue for upcoming elections.

Three days after the election, party Chairman Sen. Thruston Morton launched bids for recounts and investigations in http://www.slate.com/id/91350/sidebar/91351/">11 states—an action that Democratic Sen. Henry Jackson attacked as a "fishing expedition." Eight days later, close Nixon aides, including Bob Finch and Len Hall, sent agents to conduct "field checks" in eight of those states. Peter Flanigan, another aide, encouraged the creation of a Nixon Recount Committee in Chicago. All the while, everyone claimed that Nixon knew nothing of these efforts—an implausible assertion that could only have been designed to help Nixon dodge the dreaded "sore loser" label.

The Republicans pressed their case doggedly. They succeeded in obtaining recounts, empanelling grand juries, and involving U.S. attorneys and the FBI. Appeals were heard, claims evaluated, evidence weighed. The New York Times considered the charges in a Nov. 26 editorial. (Its bold verdict: "It is now imperative that the results in each state be definitively settled by the time the electoral college meets.")

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-11 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. your own article says Nixon didn't challenge the results.
It says it right in the fucking first sentence! Don't your read your own posts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-11 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Sure, I read it
Nixon made a show of not challenging the results, while his allies did everything they could to challenge them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. I think that's a myth. Did people who watched television instead of listening to the
radio prefer JFK because Nixon was sweating? Or did people who watched on television generally lean liberal, while people who listened to the radio leaned conservative.

Ont he other hand, anyone who witnessed Nixon's body language at any point in his career would know that something was seriously off with that man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. How the Nixon-Kennedy Debate Changed the World
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2021078,00.html


What happened after the two candidates took the stage is a familiar tale. Nixon, pale and underweight from a recent hospitalization, appeared sickly and sweaty, while Kennedy appeared calm and confident. As the story goes, those who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won. But those listeners were in the minority. By 1960, 88% of American households had televisions — up from just 11% the decade before. The number of viewers who tuned in to the debate has been estimated as high as 74 million, by the Nielsen of the day, Broadcast Magazine. Those that watched the debate on TV thought Kennedy was the clear winner. Many say Kennedy won the election that night. Sorensen says the Kennedy team didn't realize what a game changer the debate was until the following day at a campaign event in Ohio. "The crowds for his motorcade were much larger than they'd ever been," he says. "That's when we knew that, if nothing else, Kennedy had firmed up support for himself in the Democratic party."

Nixon performed much better in the subsequent debates (and appeared better thanks to the "milkshake diet" his aides put him on to fatten him up). But, as Schroeder says, the damage had been done. "You couldn't wipe away the image people had seared in their brains from the first debate." Even Kennedy acknowledged the medium's role in his victory. On November 12, 1960, four days after winning the election by a narrow margin, he said, "It was the TV more than anything else that turned the tide." Post-debate, candidates could no longer afford to ignore the potential power of television. "With the Nation Watching," a 1979 task force report, notes, "The Nixon-Kennedy debates made televised encounters between candidates the hottest thing in electioneering since the campaign button."

Up to that point, politics had not really been played out on television. "It was very much an entertainment medium," says Schroeder. "It wasn't a place for serious discourse." The next televised presidential debate wouldn't take place for 16 years, largely because candidates became wary of their influence. Lyndon B. Johnson was too intimidated by the medium to take on Barry Goldwater in 1964, and Nixon, having been burned before, refused to debate on TV in both 1968 and 1972. Televised debates reemerged 1976, when incumbent president Gerald Ford agreed to take on his Democratic challenger, Jimmy Carter. They've been standard practice in each campaign season since.

After the debate, how you presented yourself, what you looked like, how you sounded and whether you connected directly with audiences mattered, says Larry Sabato, political analyst at the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia and author of the forthcoming book, The Kennedy Half-Century. "Before the television debates most Americans didn't even see the candidates — they read about them, they saw photos of them," he told TIME. "This allowed the public to judge candidates on a completely different basis." It's a reality that continues to influence campaigns today. "When parties are considering their candidates they ask: Who would look better on TV? Who comes across better? Who can debate better?" Sabato says. "This has been taken into the calculus."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. They actually studied this?
I could have told them for free.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
existentialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. Is any surprised?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-11 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
12. Explains Sarah Palin to a t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 01:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Politics/Campaigns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC