Pluralistic Ignorance?

[Ninga]

- Snip

“ Rather than voting their own preferences, Democrats try to figure out who everyone else would vote for. They are trying to act like pundits. But just like the pundits, voters don’t know which candidates are most likely to have the broadest appeal. And sometimes their assumptions are just wrong.

Social scientists have their own jargon-laden name for what is going on — pluralistic ignorance. It could play an outsized role in determining the results of the 2020 Presidential election.

The pluralistic ignorance process goes like this: You feel a certain way. So do most other people. But you don’t realize other people feel the same way you do. You think it’s just the opposite. You behave based on your false beliefs about other people, rather than behaving in a way that is true to yourself.

It’s “pluralistic” because you are holding onto two sets of beliefs at once — your true beliefs and what you think other people believe. It is “ignorance,” because you are wrong about other people’s beliefs.

It is also a shared ignorance. You think your favorite candidate can’t get elected because you assume most people would not vote for that candidate. Lots of other people are doing the exact same thing – they have the same favorite candidate that you do, but they also assume that other people won’t vote for the candidate. That candidate can end up dropping out of the race or getting defeated, not because people didn’t believe in that candidate, but because of the pluralistic ignorance of thinking their own belief in the candidate was not shared, when it was. Too many people end up voting based on their mistaken beliefs about other people’s preferences, rather than their own preferences, which really are popular.”

-snip


https://psychcentral.com/blog/how-voters-psych-themselves-out-and-choose-the-wrong-candidate/#.Xll0AYSrhX8.twitter

[abqtommy]

1. I wouldn't be willing to bet on this. I know that in 2016 and in every election I try to pick the

best candidate using a number of factors. In 2016 I voted for Hillary in the primary and the general
and I was right along with a bunch of other people. That's definitely not the "shared ignorance"
mentioned in the op.

[keithbvadu2]

2. Had to read it more than once.

Had to read it more than once.

'You' feel that you are one of the few that hold the correct beliefs.

But 'you' are willing to consider others in their beliefs.

It could result in 'vote blue, no matter who'.

NOT ideological purity... which hurt Hillary.

[Retrograde]

3. I voted for the person I would most like to see in the office

even though she hasn't been doing well in either polls or results. If Harris were on my ballot I'd have voted for her. In November I'll vote blue no matter who, but in the primary I vote my conscience - which may be why me chosen candidates never make it to the general.

[MH1]

4. That's why we need ranked-choice voting

Instant run-off, for example.

It isn't perfect but it is far better than plurality voting and goes a long way to prevent the issue described in the OP.