There have been a series of voting styles through the ages. Meaning that in the 200 years of the US history you can identify certain decision patterns in the voters. From those based in civic duty to those who hope for change. These patterns are the ones that can be exploited by the political parties and the interest groups in the manipulation of the masses. After 200 you can say that these patterns are variations of previous patterns or could be a new as a reaction to a previous one.
Once upon a time voting was a matter of civic duty. The voters would go and perform their duty to select the persons that would represent them in the government and would do the best job possible representing their interests. These candidates were to foster and develop the policies of the political party and the blueprint presented to the voters.
Somewhere along the line voting became a popularity contest in the truest sense possible. The candidates became the issue in the race for the elective position. It was no longer a matter of the person that could the best job, but the one that could sell its personality the best. On the flip side, or the one that could smash the other candidates persona the hardest so to discredit and make that person ineligible (regardless of merit).
This popularity contest got more complicated when interest groups learned that they could funnel in tons of money for their candidates PR campaigns. This made even the person of the candidate irrelevant for the selection process, now it was the image of the candidate that was sold to the voters. The image was the one the interest groups wanted to put forward or the one the PR agencies would design based on what was needed to attract the desired target market. Substance was, and is, irrelevant
Once or twice a phenomenon would occur and the voters would vote in someone that brings them hope for change. But usually this is a too sporadic event to really matter.
A newer pattern that has emerged is the negative vote. The voters would support the candidates, not because they feel the y are the best for the position, or represented their interest. But rather on a matter of who I am voting against. The politics that offended me the most are the politics that I need to keep out of the elective positions, regardless of who is put in that elective position.
Then the most recent pattern is determined by fear. Not a new tool, but a new trend. Candidates would use their PR companies to make sure to tell voters who to fear the most. They would study the voters psyche and make sure to use the fear a target market might have. When there is nothing to fear they would create something to be afraid of. Pundits and demagogues are helpful on pin pointing and propagating, while news services help to give credence to the fearsome item.
Nowadays you vote not for the person, the idea or the image that you think is the best representing you or the policies you support. Rather you are voting for what you fear the most or hate the less...
What could be the next trend, and old tool, the use of hate in mass quantities, openly and without shame…
