Why do people vote the way they do?

[patoadam]

I would like to know why people hold the political opinions they do and vote the way they do. (Translation: Why doesn't everyone agree with my obviously correct political opinions and vote the way I do?) I have listed some popular explanations below. I should mention that the brief summaries I give do not do justice to the writers' nuanced arguments.

How can I tell which hypotheses are correct? Or are they all correct, as in the parable of the blind men and the elephant? Or is it impossible to answer "why" questions, because correlation does not imply causation? Can you suggest other theories I'm not familiar with?

Conservatives are authoritarian; liberals aren't.
Mark J. Hetherington and Jonathan D. Weiler, Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics

Conservatives come from strict-father families; liberals come from nurturant-parent families.
George Lakoff, The Political Mind and Don't Think of an Elephant

Conservative are more easily squicked than liberals.
See this article

Morality is based on five principles: caring for others, fairness/reciprocity, group loyalty, respect for authority, and purity/sanctity. Liberals base their beliefs on the first two principles; conservatives base their beliefs on all five principles.
Jonathan Haidt, as described at moralfoundations.org

Political opinions are based on emotion, not reasoning.
The Political Brain, by Drew Westen

Blue-collar workers, who used to be liberal for economic reasons, have become increasingly conservative because conservative politicians have increasingly emphasized social issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
Thomas Frank, What's the Matter With Kansas?

Comments

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Many of these seem to me to be different ways of saying similar things.

Take the 5 principles theory--that ties in with the strict-father family theory via respect for the authority of the father being more important than harm/care and fairness/reciprocity.

Take the authoritarian theory--(I admit to committing the cardinal sin of speculating about it based on the name; I don't have time to read it right now)--wouldn't that tie in via respect for authority and group loyalty being more important than harm/care and fairness/reciprocity?

Take the more easily squicked theory--wouldn't that tie in via purity/sanctity being more important than harm/care and fairness/reciprocity?

So those 4 theories seem to me to be related.

[patoadam]

Yes, I agree that the theories are similar. But there are enough differences that I don't know which theories to trust.

I don't trust Lakoff's family theory for two reasons. First, it has too many moving parts. Second, I consider his evidence weak. He is a linguist, so the evidence he cites is linguistic rather than statistical. For example, he notes that we use phrases like "sending our sons off to war", which suggests to him that we impose our model of the family on our government.

Hetherington and Weiler's authoritarian theory is consistent with Lakoff's theory. It is simpler and is supported by statistical evidence. Early in the book they present a graph showing a linear relationship between the percentage of voters in each state who voted for GWB and the percentage of people in each state who approve of spanking children. The correlation is .79.

As you point out, the authoritarian theory is one of Haidt's five principles, and the more-easily-squicked theory is related to the purity/sanctity principle. I think Haidt's principles have some evidence behind them, as they are based on international surveys.

I am convincing myself that I should look into Haidt's theory more carefully.