Choosing and having a choice is at the very heart of our social system, or so we are told. The shelves of our grocery store are replete with products that we can choose to spend our hard-earned dollars upon; the television bombards us with images of consumer products we can buy. Yet, with this simple understanding of our society, experts still cannot understand how or why the electorate votes the way they do.
On Monday, May 14, British Columbians returned Christy Clarke’s Liberals to power, and yet all of the pundits had written off her government as a lost cause. A similar thing happened in Alberta during the last provincial election; even the last federal election left many wondering what had happened. Opinion polls, scientifically conducted, mathematically calculated, all seemed to fail, which gives credence to that age-old political quip, usually uttered by the trailing party leader, “the only poll that matters is the one on election day!”
What are all of these experts overlooking? For the most part, people do not like change. Even when we are unhappy, we stick with what we know. An example of this is our banks: we are not happy with them, but we do not change them (though it is difficult to understand why not). This is the same with politicians: most of us realize that all political parties are the same, so does change really matter? It usually takes something truly dramatic for us to vote beyond our comfort zone. This could explain why we grumble about our politicians, but continue to vote them into power. This also explains why incumbents have an advantage during elections.
Choice is also an emotional decision and not as rational as we would like to think. We all know what it is like to go grocery shopping when we are hungry; our instinct is to appease our hunger, which means that we do not always make some great decisions at that point. Political pollsters, when compiling their surveys, only get a snapshot of what we are feeling at that moment in time. Though they ask a lot of questions that may make us think, for the most part we guess when we gauge how satisfied or dissatisfied we are with that particular issue. And when we come to actually voting, our choice usually reflects the status quo.
If this is the case, what emotions are truly affecting our decisions? Simply put, hope and fear lead the charge. Knowing that rarely do politicians seek our opinions and insights once elected into power, we naively hope that whomever we elect will stick to their promises and look out for our best interests as a society, though most of us today regard politicians with a healthy dose of cynicism. We know our political system has failed us, but it seems all we have left is this hope it might one day work.
As for fear, this is probably the true crux of last Monday’s election. We are constantly worried about our jobs, our incomes, our own wellbeing and that of our loved ones, so it is not difficult to understand why the B.C. electorate voted the way they did: to protect their own interests. It does not matter what ideals and values one can stand for, if you cannot demonstrate that you can protect the economy and the electorate’s jobs, then you cannot win an election. We may, statistically speaking, be dissatisfied with our politicians, but we have little choice but to work, because, at the end of the day, we do not have that luxury – that choice – not to; not if we want to be able to consume all those products seen on the shelves. That is our reality – Hobson’s Choice.
John Kennair is a resident of St. Albert.
