The “Necessary” Part: Opening the Door to Change

It’s intuitive that if you’re perfectly happy with an incumbent or a party, you’re unlikely to vote for their opponent.

Disapproval, therefore, is the necessary starting point. It’s the crack in the voter’s loyalty, the moment of doubt that allows them to consider alternatives. This is where the idea of Retrospective Voting comes in.

The theory of retrospective voting suggests that voters act like judges, evaluating incumbents based on their past performance.   Did the economy improve? Did the country feel safer?  Did the politician fulfill their promises?  If the answers are “no,” disapproval builds, and voters may choose to “punish” the incumbent at the ballot box.  This is accountability in action.

However, even this straightforward mechanism has its limits:

• Knowledge Limitations: Do voters always have accurate information to make these judgments? Or are their perceptions shaped by incomplete or biased sources?
• Misattribution of Responsibility: Is the president solely responsible for global inflation, or are there other complex factors at play? Voters might disapprove of a situation without correctly assigning blame.
• Partisan Biases: Our political leanings heavily color how we perceive performance. What one side sees as a roaring success, the other might view as a dismal failure, regardless of objective facts.

So, while disapproval of performance can lead to vote switching, it’s not an automatic trigger.  The “report card” might be marked with F’s, but the student isn’t always punished at the ballot box.

The “Not Sufficient” Part: Why Voters Stay Put Despite Disapproval

This is where things get really interesting. If a voter disapproves, why wouldn’t they automatically jump ship and punish the elected officials? Several powerful forces are at play.

The Unshakeable Grip of Partisanship and Polarization

For many, party identification isn’t just a casual preference; it’s a core part of their identity, much like religious affiliation or loyalty to a sports team.  Some have labeled it a “psycholigical attachment.”  This strong partisan identification acts as a powerful anchor.  Even if voters disapprove of certain policies or the current leader of their party, the idea of voting for “the other side” can feel like a betrayal of their own values and community.

Compounding this is the rise of affective polarization.  This isn’t just about disagreeing on policy; it’s about an intense dislike, even distrust or disdain or hate, for the opposing party and its supporters.  In such an environment, disapproval of your own party might be very real, but it can be completely overshadowed by an even stronger negative sentiment towards the alternative.  The calculation becomes less about choosing the best option and more about choosing the “lesser of two evils,” or more accurately, sticking with “our flawed side” rather than empowering “their terrible side.”  Your candidate might be disappointing, but the thought of the other candidate winning is simply intolerable.

In addition, there are other types of feelings besides polarization.

The Nuances of Negative Attitudes: Indifference vs. Ambivalence

Not all negative or mixed feelings are created equal.  Research highlights important distinctions.  For instance, studies have found that voters who are genuinely “indifferent” – lacking strong positive or negative feelings towards any party – are actually more likely to switch their votes.  They have weaker anchors and are more open to persuasion.

Contrast this with voters who are “ambivalent.”  These individuals might hold mixed feelings about their own party – perhaps they approve of its social stances but disapprove of its economic policies, or vice versa.  They might disapprove of the current leader but still feel a connection to the party’s historical values.  Ambivalent voters, despite their disapproval on some fronts, are often less likely to switch because they still have reasons to stick with their party, or their dislike of the alternative keeps them tethered.  Their disapproval is real, but it’s complicated and doesn’t lead to a clean break.

A Constellation of Other Mediating Factors

The decision to switch (or not switch) a vote is rarely based on a single factor, even one as significant as disapproval.  It’s influenced and mitigated by a host of other elements, including:

• Economic Perceptions: How voters feel about their personal financial situation and the national economy (again, often filtered through partisan lenses).
• Voter Characteristics: Factors like a voter’s core ideology, their level of political knowledge, and their engagement with the political process all play a role.
• The Information Environment: What news sources do they trust? Are they exposed to information that challenges their existing beliefs or reinforces them?  Are the news sources misinformation or disinformation?
• Candidate-Specific Evaluations: Sometimes, it’s not just about the party or performance in general, but about the specific candidates running.   Voters might disapprove of a president’s policies but find the opposing candidate even less appealing due to perceived character flaws, extreme positions, or a lack of charisma.

What Does This Mean for Accountability?

Understanding that disapproval isn’t a magic bullet for electoral change can feel disheartening if you’re hoping for more responsive politicians.  It suggests that leaders, particularly in highly polarized times, might feel they have more leeway to weather storms of public disapproval as long as they maintain the loyalty of their base and can effectively paint the opposition as an unacceptable alternative.

However, it doesn’t mean disapproval is irrelevant.  It still matters.  Consistent, widespread disapproval can:

• Energize the opposition.
• Depress turnout among a politician’s own less-enthusiastic supporters.
• Influence media narratives.
• Impact fundraising and candidate recruitment.
• Slowly erode support at the margins, which can be decisive in close elections.

In essence, disapproval creates the potential for change.  It opens or cracks the door for a voter to consider walking through to the other side.  But whether they actually cross that threshold depends on a complex interplay of deep-seated loyalties, intense feelings about the “other team,” the specific choices on offer, and a whole range of personal and contextual factors.

Simply put, there are other “punishments” voters can dole out other than voting for another party or candidate, which can often feel like a betrayal.  

So, the next time you see those approval ratings dive, remember that while it’s a significant indicator of public sentiment, it’s just one piece of the intricate puzzle that is voter behavior.

Evidence suggests that accountability, particularly based on economic performance, may indeed be weakened in the current hyper-partisian, polarized environment.

The path from a frown of disapproval to a switched vote is often long, winding, and far from guaranteed.

The Puzzle: Individual Walls vs. Collective Waves

You’ve been there:

• You argue politics with a friend, facts in hand. They dig in.
• Meanwhile, public opinion on major issues swings dramatically in just a few years.
• Even partisan groups sometimes pivot quickly.

So why does one person stay unmoved while millions change their minds?

Why Individuals Resist Change

Changing individual minds is hardwired to fail most of the time. Several psychological defenses get in the way:

• Motivated reasoning: People interpret facts to support what they already believe.
• Confirmation bias: They seek out supporting evidence, avoid what challenges them.
• Disconfirmation bias: They argue harder against facts that conflict with their views.
• Cognitive dissonance: Contradictory information creates discomfort. Most reject it rather than reconsider.
• Identity protection: Political beliefs often tie into group membership. Challenging them feels personal.
• Reactance: Push too hard, and people resist to assert their independence.
• Active resistance: They discredit sources, counter-argue, or double down on prior beliefs.

These defenses don’t just slow persuasion. They flip it. Attempts to persuade can actually reinforce opposition.

How Public Opinion Shifts Anyway

Even with all that resistance, public opinion moves. Big changes happen, just not the way most think:

• Generational replacement: Older cohorts die. Younger cohorts with different views come of age.
• Social norm cascades: Once enough people express a new view, others follow to avoid social costs.
• Elite cues: Trusted leaders signal shifts, and partisans often follow without deep reflection.
• Media framing: News outlets shape what facts people focus on and how they interpret them.
• Major events: Crises, court rulings, or wars can jolt opinion in new directions.

None of these rely on changing each individual’s mind one-on-one. They shift the environment around the individual.