Maslow's Hierarchy of Voting

Since the dawn of democratic governance have incurably idealistic activists clung with dogged determination to the idea that if you just explain things rationally to people - if you show them facts and make good sound arguments - then they will vote the way they should. Much like the libertarians who still think if we just let free markets do their thing it will all work out, this belief in the essential rationality of voting man has persisted in spite of centuries of evidence to the contrary.

Let's be blunt about this. When most people walk up to the ballot box, their frontal lobes nip off to Tim's for a double double and a quick smoke. They leave the rest of the brain to get on with the boring business of marking an X.

Reason. Has Nothing. To Do. With Voting.

The average person who pays no attention to politics all the days in between elections does not by and large base their decision on who made the best argument. They decide based on reactions to the candidates - who looks the best, who talks the best. They decide based on personal prejudices and ingrained habits. Most importantly, they decide based on their own personal needs. It's Maslow Time, baby.

Everyone who went to university and did Psych 101 knows Maslow and his Theory of Motivation. Lots of other people who didn't go to university still know Maslow. He said some stuff that made a lot of sense, so he tends to get quoted a lot.

The Hierarchy of Needs. The big pyramid that explains human behaviour. I suspect everyone here knows the theory, but just in case and just to lay the groundwork for where I'm headed, let's cover the basics.

Humans have needs, but all needs are not equal. They're stacked in hierarchical layers with the most important at the bottom. At the bottom youv'e got the real basics: air, food, water, sleep, liveable climate, sex. You don't get 'em, you're gonna die. (ok, maybe not the sex... but you get the point). The next level up you've got safety and security. Nobody stealing your stuff, a roof over your head, a steady income, good health, etc. We're one step above life and death here, but life still sucks if you're lacking in this department. Maslow calls these first two stages deficiency needs. If you're deficient in them you are not a happy camper.

Up another level to love and belonging - family, friends, sexual intimacy (if you don't know how this is different from sex, get help). Up again to self esteem - the need for self respect, the respect of others, confidence. And up again to the top of the pyramid where we find self-actualization. The need to be creative, to problem solve, to develop your own moral code, to basically let your frontal lobes run free and work off that double double.

That's Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, which drives human motivation. Every human strives to meet all their needs in one level so they can start working on the next. For a more detailed explanation of Maslow, as always Wikipedia is the repository of all knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

The thing about the Hierarchy, the thing that makes it so applicable to politics and understanding human voting, is the fact that if your needs are not being met in one level you really don't care about the next level up. So let's build Maslow's Hierarchy of Voting, shall we?

It starts much like the hierarchy of needs. Food, water - the necessities of life. If you're not getting them, and your government is not helping, you really don't care about anything else. Of course, when a country is deficient here we're usually not talking about voting behaviour, but rather rioting, revolution and civil war behaviour. Up one level. Again, in lockstep with the hierarchy of needs, the next level is safety and security. Are drug pushers having daily gun battles outside my door? Is Osama Bin Laden going to blow up my vacation flight to Europe? Is the country next door about to invade us? Just like the hierarchy of needs, these first two levels in the hierarchy of voting are deficiency needs. If they are lacking, or at least felt to be lacking, no other issue will matter come voting day.

Here's where we diverge from the hierarchy of needs. A short step above safety and security is the economy. Once the voter feels sure that no one is going to rob or bomb him, the next thing he worries about is his economic security. Does an economic downturn mean he's about to lose his job? Will rising inflation mean he can't afford basic necessities?

Above the economy is health care. Is the voter worried that if he gets sick, he's going to die ignored in a waiting room, or that he'll be turned away because he can't pay the bill?

We're reach the top of the pyramid now, and this is where it all starts to get fuzzy and shifting. Up here we've got issues like democracy, corruption, the environment, education, higher-level economic issues like productivity, etc. They move around taking priority from each other day by day, often as a result of whatever the media happens to think will sell newspapers that day.

Now at this point some people are no doubt getting fidgety about things like the environment and democracy being in the top tier, and therefore of the lowest priority to voters. Well I'm sorry, but they are. Oh yes, the environment was big for a while there, but only when the economy was chugging along and everyone at least felt like the health care system was no longer in imminent danger of crumbling. As soon as gas prices took off, people's economic security needs started to feel shaky and that's when the Green Shift went right out the window. Democracy? Just look at China. It was Tiananmin anniversary time again. By all accounts so far, the hundreds of Chinese police who packed the Square in the annual ritual of protest suppression had more to do chasing litterers than protesters this year. The Chinese are too worried about their jobs to care about their rights.

That's how it goes, folks. Jobs first, rights and climate change later.

So what does this mean for political messaging? Just this: if you're going to pick a message that actually resonates with voters, you've got to figure out where they are on the hierarchy. If your message is focused on a need that's higher or lower on the pyramid than where the voter is sitting, you're wasting your ammo. No amount of reasoned argument in the world is going to make them care about issues that aren't directly related to their current need.

And right now, it's not hard to figure out which level voters are sitting at. As ole' Jimmy Carville says, "It's the economy, stupid!"

That's why this round of attack ads from the Harper Gang are not going to have nearly the effect of previous campaigns. This time they're aiming for the wrong target. People worried about their jobs just don't CARE that one of the leaders spent 34 years outside the country.

Unfortunately, that is also why, in the current climate, any Green Party attempt to hammer on the democratic deficit or climate change in the next election is a strategy doomed to fail. "Losing Confidence" is a great book and a spot-on analysis of everything that's wrong with Canadian politics today. BUT as a piece of artillery on the election battlefield, right now it has all the firepower of a pop gun (sorry Elizabeth). On the hierarchy of voter needs, democratic deficit is way up there high above the heads of voters. It's the economy, stupid.

But be not downhearted, dear friends. The current economic fixation is not a obstacle for the Green Party. It is an opportunity. A BIG opportunity. With careful crafting, there is a way for the Green Party to meld the economy with its core environmental brand in a way that will steal the entire economic debate out of the hands of the other parties. However I have now been typing for a very long time, so that will have to be another story for another day.