Political Behavior and Schools of Fish

by Alex Patton | Nov 28, 2022 | Political Research

I was on my walk today, and a decent metaphor explaining political behavior came to the surface: a school of fish.

I think I was imagining myself standing in a cold stream being mocked by trout, but that morphed into a school of fish. 

The underlying psychology of this is how influential others behavior is on our own.  We all remember peer pressure, but somehow when we become adults, we seem to believe we have outgrown the phenomenon. 

We have not.    

Whomever we define as “our peers” has profound effects on our behavior – especially our political behavior.   

People in our friend groups, our co-workers, our fellow parishioners – all provide constant cues that influence our behavior.  We implicitly understand that going against those cues will likely bring censure or exclusion.  Censure we are smacked across the face by a tail, exclusion we are ejected into the sea.

Simply, social influence or peer pressure is one of the significant drivers of our behavior. 

It is also why bots are effective at spreading bullshit, but that is a different post. 

Once we define our groups, the small, constant cues tell us which way the group(s) are going. 

There is safety in the group, and there is laziness in the group.  I’ll not stray from the school and just draft on the work of others.  Exactly like a school of fish. 

I did read years ago a dense book by Nobel Prize winner Thomas C. Schelling, Micromotives and Macrobehavior.  It explores in an academic, dense way how small meaningless decisions and actions by individuals (micro-behaviors) often lead to significant unintended consequences for a large group (macro-behaviors).  One example he uses is white flight from neighborhoods.  I won’t recommend the read because it is a slug, but here is a good summary.   It is a work that Malcolm Gladwell made accessible in Tipping Point. 

Elected Officials Behavior

I had an earlier question about the behavior of elected officials, but I want to state that they are not immune from peer pressure.  In fact, they may be even more attuned to it, but there is a catch:  their school is likely to have a lead fish. 

Many elected bodies are organized in a hierarchical top-down fashion.    The Speaker, Senate President, Mayor – often are “guiding” these schools with an iron fin (terrible pun!).  Step out of the wake, and a politician is often left to fend for themself.

BUT – that isn’t the ONLY fish in their schools that they are swimming in.  There are donors, activists, associations, lobbyists, voters, co-workers, media, social media followers, etc – all providing cues and constant feedback. 

Conclusion

If one wants to affect change in this fractured world where nothing is important – and yet everything is important, one must think of the macro-outcome – likely a policy outcome –  as a series of almost infinite multitudes of mini-interactions.    

Each little fish must emit a small cue towards the process. 

If everyone does that, and a “head fish” doesn’t pick up on those cues – well they can be the one out by themselves.  That is the nature of schools.

Why are politicians so afraid to vote for what’s best for our country as opposed to what their party wants?

by Alex Patton | Nov 26, 2022 | Political Research

I think some it is explained by sincere differences in policies.   “Best for the country” is up for true debate.  There are those that truly believe ‘an unregulated militia’ is ‘best for the country’.  Others believe a ban on war-like weapons is ‘best for the country’.    I am not sure those two sides can compromise. 

BUT, I think your question is best answered by political scientist David Mayhew. 

SideNote:  A lot of the early political scientists got the big concepts right explaining 80% – and the rest of us are just proving nuance. 

Mayhew wrote “Members of Congress are single-minded seekers of re-election….” And I think that is the answer to your question.    

Politicians’, parties’, donors’, consultants’, etc. actions are explained by that statement.  I mean it makes sense, one can’t affect policy, if one is not in office. 

And, this explains the often cowardliness of politicians. 

This explains the many, many conversations I have had behind closed doors with elected politicians and party officials that know that much of the current political climate is complete and utter bullshit then opens the door to spout that exact bullshit. 

Why?

Representatives have pretty cool jobs (if you don’t mind the death threats, constant travel, and pesky constituents), and the halls of power are marked with scalps of the Liz Cheneys of the world while Lauren Boebert retains the title of “Representative.”

Leadership, true leadership, is often at first seen as blasphemy – especially in tribal politics.   What often is ‘best for the country’ is telling your friends you disagree.  The price is often being shunned and ostracized – see – Jeb Bush, Liz Cheney or Adam Kitzinger. 

What to do?

So, if one wants to affect the behavior of politicians – one must affect their re-election odds.   

Want them to be more responsive to your opinions?  One must organize in numbers large enough to at least have them fear you at re-election time.  If not, one gets lip service, if not ignored completely.

What is the solution to extreme divisiveness? 

by Alex Patton | Nov 22, 2022 | Political Research

Oh, now you have stepped into one the greatest modern debates in political science.  Abramowitz versus Fiorina.  Sorting versus polarization –  and now we have calcification.  Let’s get ready to rumble!!!! 

In broad strokes, Morris Fiorina has argued for years that polarization is limited to the political class (elected officials and activists) and that a huge middle is hiding in plain sight. 

Alan Abramowitz countered argued – for years – that polarization has moved into the masses and that it is related / following polarization in the political class.

Sorting is a process where voters sort themselves into the “correct” parties and polarization is where partisans ascribe to more and more extreme positions. 

So, how bad is it? 

I think in our world, it is pretty bad.  I define our world as people that work in politics, work around elected officials, work with activists, read blog posts on politics.  You know – the political nerds of the world. 

Sorting

We have sorted.  A quick example, in the blue county that I live in there are 64 precincts.  At the county level, Alachua voted for Charlie Crist 57% versus Ron DeSantis 42%.  On average, a 15% spread. 

However, if we look at the precinct level….

In 80% of the precincts in Alachua County, the vote spread is more than 15%. 

In 74% of the precincts in Alachua County, the vote spread is more than 20%. 

In a quick box plot, we observe some real outliers.  In one precinct alone, the spread is 83%!  83%!   

The data isn’t easily available to explore all of Florida most recent returns, but in previous research using the precinct as the unit of analysis, the same rough pattern played out. 

In addition, almost 40% of parents would be very upset if a child married someone from a different party.

So, we, the voters, have sorted not only in ideology – but also geography – and now marriage.

And we recognized how critical others behavior is on our own. 

Polarization

Pew studies polarization in the United States and has one of the best gifs of the polarization. 

My hope is that they update it with new information. 

Elite Polarization

General Polarization

As you can see, political elites polarized first and the public trailed. It’s only gotten worse.

Yes, there is a large portion of the public that sits “in the middle” or not as extreme – but most of them are not politically engaged.   Don’t believe me?  Go to any Walmart and conduct an interrupt poll.  (Secret – a lot of people just aren’t that into us….)  

But of the politically engaged, polarization is pronounced, ugly and for some of us – at a truly unhealthy level. 

How we got here is beyond the scope of this blog post that is attempting to answer “What is the solution to extreme divisiveness?”

A deceptively simple question, but we have to agree on the unit of analysis.  Are we talking solution at a mass level or at an individual level? 

Mass Level

I believe firmly that social media isn’t the “cause” of our divisiveness – I think our human nature / behavior is, and social media is the gasoline that ignites and flames our worst passions. 

But to make it all the worst, social media companies knew what they were doing in “increasing engagement” was going to lead to more divisiveness.

• https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-it-encourages-division-top-executives-nixed-solutions-11590507499
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Facebook_leak
• https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-employees-worrried-about-2018-algorithm-change-misinformation-trump-politics-2021-9

“Our algorithms exploit the human brain’s attraction to divisiveness,” read a slide from a 2018 presentation (Facebook).

“If left unchecked,” it warned, Facebook would feed users “more and more divisive content in an effort to gain user attention & increase time on the platform.”

Unfortunately, these platforms are the perfect hack for our human brains / nature – especially the bad sides.

It is rare that I would argue for government regulation, but in this case, I am. 

I think it is critical that these platforms be held accountable for the bullshit on their platforms – bullshit they know is harmful, bullshit they know is divisive and most importantly bullshit they know is bullshit. 

I would say the same for cable news ‘opinion’ shows. 

In addition, I think we are going to need to figure out how to ‘save’ local journalism, but that is a longer post. 

Individual level

I think awareness is key.  None of us are immune from the toxic environment that we work in; and none of us are smart enough to outwit human nature. 

There are individual things you can do to minimize social media.  Turn it off, watch what you post, take responsibility for your own behavior. 

I did this about a year ago.  At some point, I loved posting explosive political content.  It was a jolt.  Let’s “debate”.  However, at some point I realized it was all bullshit and I was a participant in it.  So, now, I post pictures of my puppy, laments about Gator football, and other hobbies. 

Funny thing happened on the way, I retrained the algorithms to show me Boxer puppies, people catching monster trouts, and other assorted silliness.  The political stuff – when I stopped – stopped being served to me as much. 

Additionally, I have been experimenting with information diets, literally starving myself of news content or turning it all off.    It is difficult, but I am also finding that ALL truly important news finds me – really, really quickly.  A call, an email, a text – I don’t want to brag – but I have yet to miss a “major news story.”

BUT, here is the most important suggestion to solving divisiveness at the individual level: scotch (or coffee if you don’t drink). 

We must seek out different people and form trusting relationships with them.  We must not allow ourselves to label the others as “evil” or even worse. We all need more circuit breakers.      

I will agree, some people are likely gone.  Gone into a dark place that we aren’t going to be able to form a relationship with.  Pick some one different.

My wife keeps me grounded (in more ways that I can count), and she is gasp….a member of the other party. 

She is my circuit breaker.

When I find myself enraged at the other side and on the verge of calling them all names – she appears and asks me to put the damn toilet seat down for the 1,000,000 time. It is literally impossible for me to hate her and her patience.

When elected officials call the others “animals” or when talking heads call the others “evil” or when political “leaders” swear the “left is out to murder us all”, my wife steps in and waves.

Each of us needs such a stop gap in our political dealings – especially if you work in the field.    

So here is the concrete suggestion – find someone on the “other” side to have a scotch or cup of coffee with and just have a natter.  (Maybe more pubs without wifi and tvs…..) 

It is critical we form a trusting relationship with an “other”(s) so that when you have the urge to start hating, you too have a circuit breaker. 

Conclusion

Divisiveness is all around us – it is rewarded financially; it is rewarded socially – one could argue it is a near currency in today’s public. 

Until government regulation and case law catches up, we need awareness that we are essentially on our own. 

And divisiveness is a strange game.  The only winning move – at the moment – is not to play and have a scotch.      

Blog Challenge: Will there ever be a “multi-party” system (i.e. 5-10 parties) or are we stuck here?

by Alex Patton | Nov 18, 2022 | Political Research

Will there ever be a “multi-party” system (i.e. 5-10 parties) or are we stuck here?

 

Short answer, we are stuck – at least for the foreseeable future.   

There are roughly three types of party government – single parties (China), two party (USA), and multi-party, where 3 or more parties have a legitimate shot at governing in whole or in a coalition (most of Europe).

As you know, the USA has a two-party system. 

Why? 

Well because the parties in power make the rules governing our elections.  And the two major parties, acting like the monopolies write the rules to keep and perpetuate their power. 

Ballot Access

Actually getting candidats on the ballot is difficult – more so in certain areas.

Access to the ballot requires filing fees and signature requirements.  These requirements vary state by state and by office.  Here is a 37 page summary document.  37 pages of ‘summary’!

A third party that wants to field a candidate in every congressional district across the country, we are talking millions of signatures and significant amounts of money.

Winner Take All Elections

In political science, there are few “laws”.

In almost every case as with most social science “it depends….” Is the beginning of most answers.

However, there is Duverger’s Law. 

Pssst…Meet Maurice Duverger – doesn’t this French political scientist look exactly like the type of guy that would pen a political science law?

I will paraphrase here (and his law is a bit more nuanced), but single member districts with first past the post elections – favor two party systems.    It’s a law!.

The very structure of American elections strongly favors two party rule.

Ideological Void

I will add a third reason.

In most cases, most people clamoring for a third party have few things in common other than rejecting both major parties. (I wrote a great post earlier about third parties in presidential elections)

Most independents act like closeted weak-partisan voters – meaning when pushed, their voting behavior mirrors a partisan voter (just don’t dare call them that).

To date, any third party that has put together a platform ends up being so absolute that they end up running goat sacrificing candidates.   Yeah, I am looking at you Libertarian Party.

Try it: write a platform and try to gain buy in.  It is so difficult, the GOP doesn’t even have one.  BAZINGA!

Conclusion

Without significant changes to the laws and regulations that govern elections, third parties will face nearly insurmountable obstacles – put in place by those that make and benefit from those exact laws and regulations.

One nascent change that is gaining a little  momentum is moving away from first past the post elections to rank choice voting.  We see this type of ballot in Maine, NYC, Alaska and few other places.    I am not a huge fan of the process, but you can learn more about it: https://www.rcvresources.org/how-it-works.

But it is also illustrative of the main point.  Those in power loathe to cede it to anyone, and will do all kinds of things to keep it. 

In Florida, Ranked Choice Voting was passed in Sarasota for local election via referendum.

Yeah, the State of Florida promptly and quickly banned it (Senate Bill 524)  for all elections in Florida with bi-partisan support.