Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Study: Partisan voters treat politics like sports rivalries

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,922
    Mentioned
    220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default Study: Partisan voters treat politics like sports rivalries

    Too Many Americans Treat Politics Like Just Another Sport, And It's Causing Problems

    America’s favorite sports, in some order: football, baseball, basketball, politics?

    A recent study has found that a significant percentage of Americans with partisan leanings care more about their political party winning an election -- or maybe more accurately, beating the other party -- than about seeing the policies that their party supports put into law. And that goes for Democrats and Republicans alike.

    The researchers looked at survey data from the 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study for the paper, "Red and Blue States of Mind: Partisan Hostility and Voting in the United States." Within it, they found 41 percent of people with strong partisan feelings said winning was more important than the what the victory would actually mean for society, while 35 percent said particular policies were a more important factor. The other 24 percent valued both equally or had no real opinion.

    In other words, a lot of Americans view politics more as just another sport than as the selection process by which we choose the men and women who will decide the rules that govern so many aspects of our daily lives.

    Earlier studies have already found that Americans view politics as something resembling a sport. But this study went one step further, uncovering evidence that hate for the other side of the political aisle often isn’t so much based on opposing values and political positions, but on loyalty to the party itself.

    In essence, Democrats and Republicans hate one another for the same reason Los Angeles Lakers fans and Boston Celtics fans despise one another -- not because of the values the other holds, but simply because they are supporters of the rival team.

    “Too many partisans are saying, 'My side is good; the other side is evil. We have to go beat them,'" Patrick Miller, a co-author of the study and assistant professor of political science at the University of Kansas, said in a release. "They're our rivals, like Kansas or Missouri, Duke or North Carolina. And that sense of animosity and demonization is really motivating average partisans to participate in politics, much more so than issues or ideology."

    This is problematic, especially in a representative democracy based upon the idea of civilly discussing the issues of the day with one another. (LOL.) The idea that so many Americans view politics with an us-versus-them mentality and without significant regard for what us and them really want appears to be leading to some issues.
    From an accompanying press release out of The University of Kansas:

    Thirty-eight percent of partisans agreed that their parties should use any tactics necessary to “win elections and issue debates.” When those who agreed with this view were asked what tactics they had in mind, the most common ones they offered were voter suppression, stealing or cheating in elections, physical violence and threats against the other party, lying, personal attacks on opponents, not allowing the other party to speak and using the filibuster to gridlock Congress. Democrats and Republicans were equally likely to express this opinion. Catch that? Roughly two-fifths of the nation appears to be alright with voter suppression, cheating, lying and violence or something similar just to help out their party’s political chances. Two-fifths are willing to threaten the roots of American democracy for the sake of winning, and what they're winning doesn't exactly matter.
    Professor Patrick Miller discusses the results of his study:



    Asked whether the rivalry could have developed out of underlying philosophical differences born early on, Miller said it's possible, but not a real excuse for the state of animosity that exists today.

    “How we feel about some of the issues can help create that sense of rivalry,” Miller told The Huffington Post. “But once that sense of rivalry is created it really takes on a life of its own.”

    (Before we continue, here are some other sports-like experiences you should start following closely if you’re one of those people willing to ruin the basis of our political system for the thrill of victory: football, baseball, basketball, soccer, ice hockey, softball, volleyball, squash, foosball, arm wrestling, rock-paper-scissors, "The Bachelor," "The Bachelorette," "Dating Naked," "Legends of the Hidden Temple" and "Global Guts" -- the latter of which we're sure are available on DVD.)

    This is not what the Founding Fathers were hoping for when we set this baby up more than 200 years ago. We’re supposed to hash things out like adults and find points of compromise, not consider inflicting violence upon one another in the name of getting a political candidate on stage to dance to some ‘70s rock icon’s anthem for a night.

    Or as Miller more rationally put it: "We're not thinking about politics in the way that most Founders wanted, which is to think about issues, be open to compromise and not be attached to parties. We're looking at politics through a simplistic partisan view in which we think our side is good and their side is bad.”

    It hasn’t always been so intense. In fact, as recently as a decade ago, the country was significantly less divided by political party than it is today. A 2014 report out of the Pew Research Center found that the two parties are now much, much more “ideologically consistent,” meaning they adhere to the party line much more so than they did in 1994, or even 2004.
    Americans who identify as Democrat and Republican are now much more likely to land hard on the liberal and conservative side of the spectrum, respectively:



    This growing divide between Democrats and Republicans can be seen every day. It's the conversations between two talking heads yelling and no one listening on TV. Or the political ads that are heavy on narratives and short on policies. Or your uncle who doesn't like that one political candidate, not because of his stance on regressive tax policies, but because he just doesn't like his look, you know?

    "What is the consequence of today's polarized politics? What's motivating partisans to vote in this climate?" Miller said. "For too many of them, it's not high-minded, good-government, issue-based goals. It's, 'I hate the other party. I'm going to go out, and we're going to beat them.' That's troubling."

    "Red and Blue States of Mind" was co-authored with Pamela Johnston Conover, a distinguished professor of political science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It was published in the peer-reviewed Political Research Quarterly.
    Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/...orts_n_7111738
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  2. #2
    hiatus
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    تخت نور
    Posts
    373
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    A damn shame. It's all just a game that distracts us from the real issues, either by design or just out of the remnants of human tribalism.

  3. #3
    C-ESI-Se 6w7 sx/sp ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,798
    Mentioned
    909 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Good thing we have a study to let us know about this.

  4. #4
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,922
    Mentioned
    220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithra View Post
    A damn shame. It's all just a game that distracts us from the real issues, either by design or just out of the remnants of human tribalism.
    The most disturbing part of the article is not that we treat politics like sports, but that we are significantly more partisan than a decade ago. Also, focusing on issues that are the most important over wanting a specific party to win should be prioritized.

    Quote Originally Posted by ashlesha View Post
    Good thing we have a study to let us know about this.
    You would be surprised by how many people are unaware of this. I am not saying that everyone should become centrists, which would be silly, but that we should try to stop this trend of the left and the right becoming more extreme. Try to aim for how we were a decade ago basically. Thankfully, some are catching on, but others are not unfortunately.
    Last edited by Raver; 12-18-2018 at 04:57 PM.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  5. #5
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,397
    Mentioned
    325 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ashlesha View Post
    Good thing we have a study to let us know about this.
    Yeah lol. This is a great example of the overwhelming lack of insight coming from the empirical psychology community.

    "In other news: Study concludes water is wet."

  6. #6
    C-ESI-Se 6w7 sx/sp ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,798
    Mentioned
    909 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Raver would you consider extremist views informed by critical thinking to be more of a threat than uninformed moderate views? I understand why extremism is dangerous but i'm wondering about the thought process behind your priorities.

  7. #7
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,922
    Mentioned
    220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ashlesha View Post
    @Raver would you consider extremist views informed by critical thinking to be more of a threat than uninformed moderate views? I understand why extremism is dangerous but i'm wondering about the thought process behind your priorities.
    Well, most extremists tend to lack critical thinking (not all of course). I am talking about the alt right white supremacists and the alt left antifa sjw. Anyways, I find uninformed moderate views to be just as bad as extremists of course, but in a different way.

    A good example of a bad moderate or centrist is president Macron in France spawning the yellow vest protests. Anyways, I think the majority in this forum are not extremists and tend to use critical thinking. Albeit too partisan for my liking, but that is part of the trend that is happening anyways.

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Yeah lol. This is a great example of the overwhelming lack of insight coming from the empirical psychology community.

    "In other news: Study concludes water is wet."
    The bigger question is if most people are aware of how emotional and divided partisan politics have become then why do many insist on continuing this trend?

    I suppose it is like those who continue to smoke cigarettes even though they are well aware of the harmful effects. They enjoy it too much to care.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  8. #8
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,397
    Mentioned
    325 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    The bigger question is if most people are aware of how emotional and divided partisan politics have become then why do many insist on continuing this trend?

    I suppose it is like those who continue to smoke cigarettes even though they are well aware of the harmful effects. They enjoy it too much to care.
    "Emotional and divided" isn't how I would phrase the problem.

    For example, if 50% of society was Nazis then it makes sense for the other 50% to be pissed off and "divided" from them.

    The real problem is when people's emotions prevent them from listening to reason and being critical of themselves and their "team" - they believe they should win whether right or wrong.

  9. #9
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,922
    Mentioned
    220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    "Emotional and divided" isn't how I would phrase the problem.

    For example, if 50% of society was Nazis then it makes sense for the other 50% to be pissed off and "divided" from them.

    The real problem is when people's emotions prevent them from listening to reason and being critical of themselves and their "team" - they believe they should win whether right or wrong.
    Yes, I agree with you on this. Partisan politics are only an issue when you are more focused on the party winning rather than the issues that matter.

    @ashlesha So I guess I should clarify and add that there is good extremism and bad moderatism like you mentioned. The real goal is divorcing ourselves from party affiliations and focusing on the issues that matter.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  10. #10
    Moderator xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Miniluv
    Posts
    7,792
    Mentioned
    205 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Democracy was an extremist ideology once upon a time.

  11. #11
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,922
    Mentioned
    220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TrickyDlck View Post
    Democracy was an extremist ideology once upon a time.
    A great example of good extremism. Too bad the extremism of today is mostly bad ala authoritarian left and authoritarian right extremism. Bernie Sanders was a good example btw of someone perceived as extreme left in the US that could of spawned good changes even though he is center left in Canada and Europe.

    I was an avid supporter of him because he would bring positive leftist policies to the US. Instead, we just got people quabbling over Clinton vs. Trump in fierce partisan divide despite it being two sides of the authoritarian fence. Clinton was trash compared to Sanders despite more centrist compared to him. It is not as simple as extremism vs. moderatism. It is about looking at the policies that matter without being blinded by political lenses.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  12. #12
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    If voting did anything, they'd ban it. It's just another circus.

  13. #13
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,922
    Mentioned
    220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    If voting did anything, they'd ban it. It's just another circus.
    Yes and in a way national democracy has already been circumvented with the EU. What good is electing a leader for your country when EU laws from appointed politicians can overpower national laws? The only way out is leaving the EU like Britain did.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  14. #14
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,263
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    Yes and in a way national democracy has already been circumvented with the EU. What good is electing a leader for your country when EU laws from appointed politicians can overpower national laws? The only way out is leaving the EU like Britain did.
    Might do. It's not official until it happens. It ain't over until the fat lady sings. Or Theresa May.

  15. #15
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,922
    Mentioned
    220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    Might do. It's not official until it happens. It ain't over until the fat lady sings. Or Theresa May.
    True, there is some hope for Europe if Brexit goes through and the French protests do something positive.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  16. #16

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the problem is expecting people to be perfect and make perfectly informed and impartial decisions. Well they obviously don't. We all start with some unfounded biases or loyalties, but that can be solved by having two opposing sides collide in a debate to come up with some sort of a conclusion. The reason why democracy works is because we have those things, or we're supposed to.

    And if you say that "empirical evidence based science" doesn't work or it only gives you obvious things that you already know, then I'd agree. Because by definition, it can't give you any more than the current "evidence", it can't tell you things about the future. But thankfully, most science isn't actually like that. I actually don't think that any results of arguments can be ultimately predicted, even in principle.

  17. #17
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,922
    Mentioned
    220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I think the problem is expecting people to be perfect and make perfectly informed and impartial decisions. Well they obviously don't. We all start with some unfounded biases or loyalties, but that can be solved by having two opposing sides collide in a debate to come up with some sort of a conclusion. The reason why democracy works is because we have those things, or we're supposed to.

    And if you say that "empirical evidence based science" doesn't work or it only gives you obvious things that you already know, then I'd agree. Because by definition, it can't give you any more than the current "evidence", it can't tell you things about the future. But thankfully, most science isn't actually like that. I actually don't think that any results of arguments can be ultimately predicted, even in principle.
    I agree, but I think the two party system is flawed. In Canada, we have a three party system: Liberal (analogous to the Democrats), Conservatives (analogous to the Republicans) and the NDP (a party that is more leftist than the Liberals). NDP did achieve something great that neither two of the major parties did and that was universal health care among other achievements. I think it's good evidence that it helps a society evolve when you are not limited to two parties as they will introduce more radical ideas for the greater good.

    Also, we have a majority and minority governments where you get a minority government if the election is won with a small difference in seats and votes and a majority government is won if the election is won with a bigger difference in seats and votes. This system isn't as good as Europe though as there are European countries with even more than three parties and with a higher chance to obtain a minority government. However, I still think Canada's political system is slightly better than the US's political system.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  18. #18

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I agree, but I think the two party system is flawed. In Canada, we have a three party system: Liberal (analogous to the Democrats), Conservatives (analogous to the Republicans) and the NDP (a party that is more leftist than the Liberals). NDP did achieve something great that neither two of the major parties did and that was universal health care among other achievements. I think it's good evidence that it helps a society evolve when you are not limited to two parties as they will introduce more radical ideas for the greater good.

    Also, we have a majority and minority governments where you get a minority government if the election is won with a small difference in seats and votes and a majority government is won if the election is won with a bigger difference in seats and votes. This system isn't as good as Europe though as there are European countries with even more than three parties and with a higher chance to obtain a minority government. However, I still think Canada's political system is slightly better than the US's political system.
    Well that's good, since the threat to democracy is always a lack of plurality. If you have one giant party dominating over the others, then that's when you have a problem. It becomes indistinguishable from one-party authoritarianism, except that it's a multi-party system in name only. So even a multi-party system isn't immune to that problem, but there could be a system put in place to try to discourage that from happening.

    It's also to do with lack of choice. Two-party system can be great as long as the two parties are distinct, but if they're not and they're both becoming more alike, then that's when you effectively have a one-party system. That's kind of the reason why Trump was elected in the US, because people were getting fed up that no matter which politicians and which presidents they elect, they were getting the same result. So at least Trump seemed like he was going to do something different, so they put him in. But I don't think they really got that. It's yet again the same old.

    So as long as we have a choice, then it's good. The problem starts when we no longer have a choice or any alternatives. It's the same in democracy, in capitalism, in scientific theories...

  19. #19
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,922
    Mentioned
    220 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well that's good, since the threat to democracy is always a lack of plurality. If you have one giant party dominating over the others, then that's when you have a problem. It becomes indistinguishable from one-party authoritarianism, except that it's a multi-party system in name only. So even a multi-party system isn't immune to that problem, but there could be a system put in place to try to discourage that from happening.

    It's also to do with lack of choice. Two-party system can be great as long as the two parties are distinct, but if they're not and they're both becoming more alike, then that's when you effectively have a one-party system. That's kind of the reason why Trump was elected in the US, because people were getting fed up that no matter which politicians and which presidents they elect, they were getting the same result. So at least Trump seemed like he was going to do something different, so they put him in. But I don't think they really got that. It's yet again the same old.

    So as long as we have a choice, then it's good. The problem starts when we no longer have a choice or any alternatives. It's the same in democracy, in capitalism, in scientific theories...
    Well said. Another gripe I have with the two party system is that it is not what it used to be. The US has devolved to a corporate oligarchy from being a republic.

    With the power of corporations to lobby for politicians including the president then the elected governments become less disparate when trying to please their consituents.

    I am sure there was a time where voting mattered and we elected presidents that sought to uniquely serve the public, but that boat has long sailed IMO.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •