Close Up Shot of American Flag

Rethinking Voter Preferences: A New Approach to Understanding Election Day Choices

read time - icon

0 min read

Jun 03, 2024

Ah, Election Day. We’ve all been there and know it well. I’m sure you can picture it.

You walk into your local polling station, slide the curtain aside, and step into your private booth. You’re presented with a long list of candidate stances on pressing and pertinent issues, which you read and consider carefully. The graphite in your pencil begins to glow as you move furiously down the list, pausing briefly at each line to indicate the extent to which each option aligns with your political views. After wiping the sweat from your brow, you return your ballot and leave, fulfilled by having dutifully completed your civic duty.

At the end of the day, the powers that analyze the results and decompose our presidential candidates into their constituent pieces assemble a new candidate—an amalgamation of our contenders that most closely reflects the will of the people. We then rejoice, satisfied by knowing that we will be led by an individual who perfectly encapsulates the complex and dynamic will of we, the people.

Wait… hang on a second… that’s not quite right, is it?

Elections are a discrete choice, in which voters may choose between one of a finite set of options. Candidates have a set of (hopefully) defined and consistent positions on the pressing issues we care about. This means that our ability to pick and choose is limited. For most voters, the decision of where to allocate their vote involves some degree of tradeoff, in which we must decide which candidate best embodies our nuanced preferences and accept them for what they are, rather than as we wish they were. 

Yet, when we poll issues, that nuance is difficult to fully consider. For instance, Quinnipiac University’s February 21st poll reports that 67% of surveyed voters believe that Joe Biden is too old to effectively serve another term as president. At face value, that seems somewhere on the spectrum of problematic to disastrous. Reality, however, is never as simple as a single data point. Only 37% of surveyed voters feel that Trump has the kind of personality and temperament it takes to serve effectively as president. Only 35% of voters feel that Biden has the physical fitness to serve. Have you considered that 71% believe that Trump’s stance towards NATO is a bad idea? As you continue to layer on conflicting perspectives on issues relevant to the voting public—Gaza, the economy, reproductive rights, immigration, the southern border, the health of American democracy—we are left with a convoluted picture.

Everything matters in isolation, but understanding how much influence this complex web of interactions has on voters’ decisions is difficult to decipher.

A step forward

This article provides a proof of concept for adapting a methodology often used in the social sciences to build a more holistic picture of voter preferences. The method, a form of conjoint analysis known as a discrete choice experiment (DCE), is conceptually simple. Present voters with a series of pairs of hypothetical candidates. Each candidate is randomly assigned a set of attributes. An attribute might be a personal characteristic such as age or a policy position. The possible states of these attributes are predetermined, and ideally should align with either the political stances of the candidates of interest or stances they might consider adopting. Voters are tasked with selecting their preferred candidate from these randomly generated sets of options. By analyzing the trade-offs that voters are willing to make, researchers can build a fairly nuanced picture of the importance of the issues themselves, along with robust estimates of preference for individual policy stances.

References

  1. Wikipedia. (2023, November 27). Joe Biden. Retrieved June 3, 2024, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden
  2. Segers, G. (2024, March 8). Biden has pledged to restore Roe. Some say that won’t cut it. The New Republic. https://newrepublic.com/article/179669/biden-restore-roe-abortion-rights
  3. Smialowski, B. (2024, February 12). Biden disparages Netanyahu in private but hasn’t significantly changed U.S. policy toward Israel and Gaza. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/biden-disparages-netanyahu-private-hasnt-changed-us-policy-israel-rcna138282
  4. Beck, M., Dirr, A., & Garrison, J. (2024, May 2). Biden pledges to accept election results, after Trump wouldn't commit without conditions. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/05/02/biden-pledges-to-accept-election-results-after-trump-wouldnt-commit/73543165007/
  5. The White House. (2024, February 5). FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris administration calls on Congress to immediately pass the bipartisan national security agreement. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/02/04/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-calls-on-congress-to-immediately-pass-the-bipartisan-national-security-agreement/
  6. Wikipedia. (2023, October 3). Donald Trump. Retrieved June 3, 2024, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
  7. Haberman, M., Swan, J., & Lerer, L. (2024, February 16). Trump Privately Expresses Support For A 16-Week Abortion Ban. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/us/politics/trump-abortion-ban.html
  8. Samuels, B. (2023, November 28). Trump gives mixed messages on how he'd handle Israel-Hamas war. The Hill. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4331958-trump-mixed-messages-on-how-hed-handle-israel-hamas-war/#:~:text=Trump%20has%20said%20he%20would,while%20he%20was%20in%20office
  9. Liptak, K., & Vazquez, M. (2020, September 24). Trump refuses to commit to a peaceful transition of power after Election Day | CNN politics. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/23/politics/trump-election-day-peaceful-transition/index.html
  10. Colvin, J. (2023, November 12). Trump's plans if he returns to the White House include deportation raids, tariffs and mass firings. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/trump-policies-agenda-election-2024-second-term-d656d8f08629a8da14a65c4075545e0f
  11. Metzger, B. (2023, December 7). All of a sudden, it's no longer taboo to talk about placing conditions on the billions of dollars in US aid to Israel. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/conditions-us-aid-israel-blank-check-bernie-sanders-2023-11#:~:text=Some%20proponents%20of%20conditioning%20US,gross%20violations%20of%20human%20rights.%22
  12. Jimison, R. (2024, March 12). Senators urge Biden to stop arming Israel, citing violation of US Aid Law. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/12/us/politics/democrats-biden-israel-letter.html

About the Author

A person stands against a brick wall, wearing a dark suit jacket over a white button-up shirt, looking directly ahead.

Turney McKee

Turney McKee is a Director at The Decision Lab. He holds a Masters of Science in Cellular Biology and Bachelors of Science in Pharmacology, both from McGill University. He is interested in international healthcare systems and public policy. Before joining The Decision Lab, Turney worked as a competitive and business intelligence analyst in the healthcare and technology sectors.

About us

We are the leading applied research & innovation consultancy

Our insights are leveraged by the most ambitious organizations

Image

I was blown away with their application and translation of behavioral science into practice. They took a very complex ecosystem and created a series of interventions using an innovative mix of the latest research and creative client co-creation. I was so impressed at the final product they created, which was hugely comprehensive despite the large scope of the client being of the world's most far-reaching and best known consumer brands. I'm excited to see what we can create together in the future.

Heather McKee

BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST

GLOBAL COFFEEHOUSE CHAIN PROJECT

OUR CLIENT SUCCESS

$0M

Annual Revenue Increase

By launching a behavioral science practice at the core of the organization, we helped one of the largest insurers in North America realize $30M increase in annual revenue.

0%

Increase in Monthly Users

By redesigning North America's first national digital platform for mental health, we achieved a 52% lift in monthly users and an 83% improvement on clinical assessment.

0%

Reduction In Design Time

By designing a new process and getting buy-in from the C-Suite team, we helped one of the largest smartphone manufacturers in the world reduce software design time by 75%.

0%

Reduction in Client Drop-Off

By implementing targeted nudges based on proactive interventions, we reduced drop-off rates for 450,000 clients belonging to USA's oldest debt consolidation organizations by 46%

Read Next

Notes illustration

Eager to learn about how behavioral science can help your organization?