#Psephology

[probablyasocialecologist]

In the context of what we’ve learned from our investigations into opt-in polls, we took particular notice of a recent online opt-in survey that had a startling finding about Holocaust denial among young Americans. The survey, fielded in December 2023, reported that 20% of U.S. adults under 30 agree with the statement, “The Holocaust is a myth.” This alarming finding received widespread attention from the news media and on social networks. From a survey science perspective, the finding deserved a closer look. It raised both of the red flags in the research literature about bogus respondents: It focused on a rare attitude (Holocaust denial), and it involved a subgroup frequently “infiltrated” by bogus respondents (young adults). Other questions asked in that December opt-in poll also pointed to a need for scrutiny. In the same poll, about half of adults under 30 (48%) expressed opposition to legal abortion. This result is dramatically at odds with rigorous polling from multiple survey organizations that consistently finds the rate of opposition among young adults to be much lower. In an April 2023 Pew Research Center survey, for instance, 26% of U.S. adults under 30 said abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. This was 13 points lower than the share among older Americans (39%). Our estimate for young adults was similar to ones from other, more recent probability-based surveys, such as an AP-NORC survey from June 2023 (27%) and a KFF survey from November 2023 (28%). We attempted to replicate the opt-in poll’s findings in our own survey, fielded in mid-January 2024 on Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel. Unlike the December opt-in survey, our survey panel is recruited by mail – rather than online – using probability-based sampling. And in fact, our findings were quite different. Rather than 20%, we found that 3% of adults under 30 agree with the statement “The Holocaust is a myth.” (This percentage is the same for every other age group as well.) Had this been the original result, it is unlikely that it would have generated the same kind of media attention on one of the most sensitive possible topics. Likewise, our survey found substantial differences from the December poll on support for legal abortion. In the opt-in survey, roughly half of young adults (48%) said abortion should always be illegal or should only be legal in special circumstances, such as when the life of the mother is in danger. In our survey, 23% said so. These differences in estimates for young adults are what we would expect to see – based on past studies – if there were a large number of bogus respondents in the opt-in poll claiming to be under the age of 30. These respondents likely were not answering the questions based on their true opinions. The takeaway from our recent survey experiment is not that Holocaust denial in the United States is nonexistent or that younger and older Americans all have the same opinions when it comes to antisemitism or the Middle East. For example, our survey experiment found that young adults in the U.S. are less likely than older ones to say the state of Israel has the right to exist. This is broadly consistent with other rigorous polling showing that young people are somewhat less supportive of Israel – and more supportive of Palestinians – than older Americans. Rather, the takeaway is that reporting on complex and sensitive matters such as these requires the use of rigorous survey methods to avoid inadvertently misleading the public, particularly when studying the attitudes of young people.

[kick-the-clouds]

The electoral college is a relic. It stands as a barrier between the people and the power they deserve in choosing their own leaders. Every four years, we’re told that our votes are the heart of democracy. Yet, the electoral college tells us that some votes matter more than others. This isn’t democracy; it’s a flawed system favoring a few states over the will of the many.

Imagine this: in a close presidential race, a handful of states hold all the power. Millions of Americans cast ballots, but ultimately, the decision rests with a few so-called "swing states." These states, based on arbitrary borders and outdated logic, decide for the entire nation. If you live in New York or California, your vote often feels like a whisper in a crowded room. In Ohio or Florida, however, that whisper becomes a shout that demands attention. This isn’t fair, and it isn’t democracy.

The electoral college was built on compromises. It was a tool to balance power, considering states as much as people. But today, it silences the majority to appease a few. The numbers are staggering: in 2016, for example, one candidate lost the popular vote by millions yet won the presidency due to electoral votes. This isn’t a glitch; it’s a feature of a system that disregards the majority's voice in favor of a strategic few.

Our democracy should be simple. The candidate with the most votes wins. But with the electoral college, we’re left with a system that undermines the very foundation of equal representation. Each election under this system adds to the divide, making the very people it’s supposed to serve feel disillusioned and disconnected. We owe it to ourselves to question why we hold onto a system that weakens the promise of democracy.

Psephology, the science of voting patterns, shows us the data: people are more likely to vote when they feel their vote matters. With the electoral college, that sense of power vanishes for millions, diminishing voter turnout and disengaging citizens from a process that should unite us.

The time for change is now. We need a system that reflects the values we claim to hold dear—fairness, equality, and the right of every citizen to have their vote counted as equal. The electoral college stands as a barrier, one that no longer serves the people but the political game. Our voices deserve more. Let’s end this outdated system and let the true will of the people shine through.

[you-must-be-held-accountable]

Power lives in our hands.

When we go to the polls, when we press a button or mark a ballot, we do more than vote. We choose who will shape our lives. This is the heart of psephology—the study of elections and voters. But knowledge alone is not power. Power comes from action, from demanding accountability from those we elect.

Elections are not the end of the story; they’re just the beginning. Politicians work for us. They hold office to serve the people, not the other way around. When they break promises, when they forget their words, it is our right and our duty to remind them who gave them power.

And accountability is a force stronger than any campaign. When we watch, when we question, when we speak, they feel it. They know that we are not passive, that we are watching, that we care. Let them know that their words matter.

Hold them to their promises. Make them work for you. Because power lives in our hands.

[weird-things-to-think]

Ah, psephology! That wondrous, confusin thing. Psefology (or sefelogy? no, wait...it's psufoly?) is the ~scientific~ study of elctions an votin. Yes, I said votin, like the stuff ppl do every couple years where they write on papr an hope somebdy counts it. Phephology sounds all fancy, but rly it’s jus a buncha ppl tryna figure out y u and I voted for tht guy who promises free pizza for evry1, and how on EARTH they can count all those scribbles.

So, lik, ok—here’s the deal. Psepology comes from Greece. They usd lil stones (psephos!) for votin in the old days, wich sounds, idk, pretty unhygenic. Anyway, psefology just cums from this ideea of tossin’ stones (hopefully no one gets hert) an sayin “oh yea, I lik dis guy!”

Nw, da experts who doo this psefology stuf? They’re called psefologists. Yeah, try pronouncin’ tht. These ppl get super intense about numbrs an bar graphs an pie chartrs. They just stare at lines an dots an then they tel us who gonna win before votes even counted—like psychics but wit math. They talk about “trends” an “swing states,” whatevr tht means. I’m prety sure it’s jus code for “we r guessing.”

So u may ask, “Why do we NEED psefology?” A gud question! The answer is...unclear. But somtimes they rite sum smart-lookin reports that tells u things like “voters r mad” or “turnout is low.” V. insightful.

In conclushion,

[violence-is-literally-stupid]

In the cold, unforgiving corridors of democracy, there’s a game played by fools and the reckless—the game of psephology, the science of elections. It’s where hope meets the most absurd acts of violence and corruption, where the stakes are high, but the deeds are often mindless. Here, where the public’s trust should be sacred, it is instead sold, stolen, shattered.

Consider the ballot-stuffers, those who turn democracy’s cornerstone into a sham. They creep in the night, stuffing boxes with false votes, thinking they’re clever—thinking they won’t be found out. Their greed leaves a trail, a mockery of justice, yet they believe their secrets will stay buried.

And then there are the ones who seek power through terror. They threaten, they bully, they break bones to keep their grip on the people. They show no mercy, no shame, no honor. They think their force will hold forever. They laugh at the law, scoff at justice, as though violence could replace truth.

But the most tragic, the most pitiful of all, are those who don’t just betray a system—they betray themselves. They trade their principles for pennies, sell their loyalty for a fleeting moment of power, thinking they’ve won. But what they’ve lost is greater—the trust of the people, the hope of the next generation, the very soul of democracy.

This is the bleak dance of psephology gone dark. It’s where reason drowns in ambition, where justice withers in shadows. And yet, despite the ruin they sow, there is something they can never take: the enduring will of the people, a force that, though bruised, never truly breaks.

[so-true-overdue]

Our planetary home—a singular, irreplaceable gem in the vast celestial tapestry—is deteriorating, and yes, we are the culprits. Human-induced climate change is not some whimsical myth conjured by ecologists looking for attention. It is a harsh, inescapable reality, as undeniable as the sun’s orbit or gravity itself. And yet, the mechanisms that lead us to elect policymakers who turn a blind eye to this existential issue—through the curious lens of psephology—are as confounding as they are damning.

Consider this: the very air that nourishes our lungs and the water that sustains our bodies are under siege. Our industries spew greenhouse gases with a fervor that would be impressive were it not so catastrophically misguided. Temperatures spike, oceans rise, species vanish, and ecosystems crumble before our eyes. Every reliable, peer-reviewed study screams the same indubitable conclusion—humans are irrevocably altering the climate, bending it to a shape so alien that, if Mother Nature herself could muster a tear, it would likely be one of sheer frustration. And yet, the psephological machinations that determine who steers our ship reward obfuscation and deceit over action and accountability.

Psephology, the supposedly noble science of predicting and analyzing electoral outcomes, is like a tragic comedy within this narrative of global despair. Despite the volumes of data elucidating the grim path we tread, we continue to witness candidates who vow allegiance to the fossil fuel sector gaining power. The very mechanisms of democracy that should empower us to stave off disaster are, thanks to our own inaction and collective apathy, inadvertently fast-tracking our self-destruction. Elections are swayed not by the sheer gravity of impending ecological collapse but by mindless platitudes and the manipulation of sentiment.

In the end, our greatest enemy is not the raging fires or the thawing permafrost; it is the systemic complacency we allow to govern our choices, epitomized in the psephological circus that lets anti-science voices hold sway. Make no mistake: humanity has bet against itself, jeopardizing the only planet we have for the fleeting comfort of denial.

[faith-in-democracy]

Psephology could save democracy.

Yes, the unassuming study of elections and voting behavior may just be the hero we need. At first glance, psephology sounds like one of those academic disciplines meant to gather dust in lecture halls and research journals. But in a world teetering on the edge of democratic collapse, psephology is more than just number-crunching and historical patterns. It is, in fact, a lifeline to civility, understanding, and, dare I say, trust.

We live in a time when political beliefs divide families, friendships, and entire communities. Outrage fuels social media, where clicks reward conflict over calm. But imagine if we approached our elections with the same careful, neutral analysis that psephologists use to study them. These researchers don’t pick sides. They don’t go into an election armed with preconceptions. Instead, they delve into the data to learn who votes, why they vote, and what influences them. Their goal is not to judge but to understand.

By embracing this mindset, we could rediscover a crucial element of democracy: respect. Psephology does not reduce voters to labels. It reminds us that each voter is a complex individual with a unique story. When we learn why people vote as they do, we see beyond stereotypes. We move beyond “us vs. them” and begin to understand that our fellow citizens, no matter how different their views, are not enemies but participants in the same democratic experiment.

Now, imagine what this approach could mean for society. Instead of calling each other names across the dinner table or on Facebook, we could discuss, learn, and listen. Elections would become an opportunity for conversation rather than combat. If we valued understanding as much as winning, civility could return to our political culture.

At the heart of this is a simple but radical idea: faith in democracy. Psephology shows us that elections are more than votes on paper. They are reflections of who we are and what we care about. And when we understand that, maybe we won’t be so quick to assume the worst in others.

[extremely-moderate]

Moderation is Power

Let’s get one thing straight: moderation is not apathy. It’s not fence-sitting, and it’s certainly not weakness. In fact, moderation is a relentless commitment to evidence, transparency, and the courage to weigh every decision with a deep respect for social impact. It’s a firm stand for truth in a world that often rewards extremes.

When we talk about moderate policies, we’re not talking about a half-hearted blend of clashing ideals. We’re talking about reasoned, evidence-based choices. Every decision—a vote, a law, a reform—is scrutinized not just for its flashiness or ideological appeal but for its real effects on real people. Moderation isn’t soft on science; it champions it. It doesn’t ignore economics; it balances it with social progress. It understands the complexities of government but insists on simplicity where it matters: accountability, integrity, and transparency.

Moderates don’t shy away from the hard work of psephology—the analysis of voting patterns and their implications. We look at the data, study the numbers, and make moves that reflect a clear understanding of the people’s will. It’s not glamorous; it’s grounded. And that’s the point.

Moderation is fearless. It’s not swayed by empty rhetoric or loud voices demanding “bigger” or “smaller” government at any cost. It understands that there’s more to governance than catchy slogans. Every decision, every law, every stance is measured, not by what’s easy or popular, but by what’s right.

Moderation doesn’t aim for the middle ground to play it safe. It stands firmly on evidence. It knows the value of careful, calculated action and has no tolerance for laziness or blind faith. If anything, it demands more work, more nuance, and more dedication to the truth than any extreme ever could. And that’s powerful.

[decoding-narcissism]

Politics, like people, is predictable. Psephology—the study of elections and voting behavior—reveals patterns of influence, persuasion, and control. The parallels between electoral tactics and the mind games played by narcissists are striking. Both aim for dominance, thriving on manipulation, and both want the same thing: unwavering, unthinking loyalty.

A narcissist doesn’t ask for trust; they demand it. They sway people close to them with the same tactics that sway entire electorates. They isolate, deceive, charm, and—most of all—control. With each interaction, they subtly nudge their target toward dependence, weaving a web of influence that feels inescapable. They seek to be the only voice that matters, the one source of truth.

In politics, psephology tells us that voters are often swayed by simple, repeated messages. Candidates hammer away with slogans that make voters feel seen, understood, and sometimes even adored. Narcissists mirror this. They shower praise on their targets, creating a façade of affection so powerful it feels real, even though it’s anything but. They make their target feel special, chosen, needed. But it's a ruse—a technique to get compliance, devotion, and blind loyalty.

And just like with political campaigns, once the adulation serves its purpose, it fades. Politicians have little use for voters once elected, and narcissists do the same. After building you up, they start to cut you down, shifting from praise to criticism. A narcissist will praise someone’s intellect one day and undermine it the next, keeping their target constantly off-balance. They plant seeds of self-doubt, subtly and cruelly, convincing their target they are nothing without them.

In psephology, experts study how people fall for this cycle time and again. They understand that repetition, charisma, and confidence can sway millions. Narcissists know this instinctively. Their charm is a tool, their manipulation a craft. They bend reality, keeping their targets close but never quite satisfied, because satisfied people don’t stay. And, above all, they must be in control, just like a political powerbroker, but on a deeply personal level.

Narcissists are the ultimate psephologists. They know how to make people vote for them with their lives, with their love, with their loyalty. And they don’t just seek a win; they seek complete ownership. For a narcissist, there’s no compromise, no equality. There’s only victory—and

[churchofnix]

Voting is not a miracle—it’s a messy, gloriously democratic exercise in our own responsibility. Psephology, the study of elections, can tell you a lot about why people vote, but it won’t tell you how divine intervention played a role. Let’s get one thing clear: no amount of prayer will fill out your ballot, sway a poll, or drive a candidate’s campaign bus. Prayer, after all, does not mow your lawn, bake your bread, or paint your fence. It’s about an internal shift, a soulful alignment.

But voting? That’s as external as it gets. If you want change, the ballot box is where you take your faith, your doubts, your grand ideas, and your gripes. Prayer is for your spirit; voting is for the world you walk in. So, go pray for guidance, for wisdom, for peace if you like. But don’t expect the heavens to pull the lever for you. That one’s on us.

[capitalism-is-a-psychopathy]

Democracy isn’t always as smart as it looks. Psephology—the study of elections and voting—lays bare how human decisions shape nations, but also how they can be warped by incentives that are dangerously short-sighted. In a system where profit is king, the goal becomes simple: get the next win, the next payout, the next quarter’s result. Campaigns don’t sell visions; they sell slogans, as shallow as bumper stickers and just as fast to fade. Extreme capitalism rewards this behavior, fueling a frantic rush that punishes anyone who dares to plan for more than the immediate future. And as corporations and governments pursue short-term gains, our long-term survival slips down the agenda, drowning in the relentless push for profit.

[lorxus-is-a-fox]

Try to find a counterexample and fail.

Use the supposed example to prove that it's actually a counterexample.

Use undesirable counterexamples to sculpt the edges of definitions in progress.

Try to find a family of counterexamples. Characterize the counterexamples.

Try to find a counterexample.

[communistkenobi]

I’m reading Late Fascism by Alberto Toscano. I’m still on the first chapter, where he discusses various definitions of fascism and their usefulness for highlighting specific components of fascist rhetoric and organising. And I particularly like this section where he critiques and dismisses the “white-working-class” argument, ie, that the modern bases of fascism can be found in the white working class, who express this fascist consciousness through voting for right-wing politicians (and he is of course talking about the US, addressing this formation re: the Trump base):

This is why it is incumbent on a critical (or indeed anti-fascist) left to stop indulging in the ambient rhetoric of the white working-class voter as the subject-supposed-to-have-voted for the fascist-populist option. This is not only because of the sociological dubiousness of the electoral argument, or the enormous pass it gives to the middle and upper classes, or because of the tawdry forms of self-satisfied condescension it allows a certain academic or journalistic commentator or reader, or even the way it leads a certain left to indulge the fantasies 'if only we could mobilise them' and 'if only we had the right slogan'. Politically speaking, the working class as a collective body, rather than as a manipulated seriality, does not (yet) exist. To impute the subjectivity of a historical agency to a false political totality is not only to unwittingly repeat the unity trick of fascistic propaganda but also to suppose that emancipatory political forms and energies lie latent in social life. By way of provocation, we could adapt Adorno's statement, quoted earlier, to read: 'We may at least venture the hypothesis that the class identity of the contemporary Trump voter in a way presupposes the end of class itself.' A sign of this is the stickiness of the racial qualifier white in white working class. Alain Badiou once noted about the phraseology of ‘Islamic terrorism’ that when a predicate is attributed to a formal substance… it has no other consistency than that of giving an ostensible content to that form. In ‘Islamic terrorism’, the predicate ‘Islamic’ has no other function except that of supplying an apparent content to the word ‘terrorism’ which is itself devoid of all content (in this instance, political). Here whiteness is - not just at the level of discourse, but, I would argue, at the level of political experience - the supplement to a politically void or spectral notion of the working class; it is what allows a pseudo-collective agency to be imbued with a (toxic) psychosocial content. This is all the more patent if we note how, in both public debate and psephological [electoral] 'expertise', whiteness seems to be indispensable in order to belong to this ‘working class’, while any determinate relation to the means of production is optional at best. (pp 19-20)

His critique of the white-working-class argument, that ‘The Left’ has insufficiently persuaded this group and left them to be duped by ‘The Right’, is that in order to conceptualise the white working class as a coherent political group that has become aware of itself as a political group through right-wing (fascist) consciousness-raising, is to argue that fascist consciousness is a form of proletarian class consciousness. As he says, it’s not only incorrect in practical and factual terms, but makes an analytical error in assuming that fascists are primarily mobilising people with regard to their class position. This argument accepts the validity of the “populist” label as a horseshoe catch-all, that left-wing articulations of proletarian class consciousness are equivalent to right-wing articulations of a national/racial pseudo-consciousness.

And as he says, this is also not an argument about class at all - working class means nothing in this formulation, its primary function is to ground ‘white’ and give it apparent meaning. This is how he arrives at Adorno’s adapted formulation of ‘presupposing the end of class itself,’ as class holds no explanatory power and makes little reference to reality (it is only a ‘spectral notion’). In effect, it collapses ‘white’ into ‘working class’, making whiteness a prerequisite of belonging to the working class. This is a hilarious trick given that the white qualifier is at least partially meant to save the journalist or academic from accusations of assuming all working class people are white, but by emphasising whiteness with no regard to the class position that the white-working-class supposedly occupies, race is flattened into working class, reducing class to (the white) race.  

Of course, this conclusion is not derived from any serious analysis of racial histories and economic processes such as colonialism, where this race/class intertwining helps to explain and understand the lineage of race itself. I’m pulling now from Aníbal Quijano’s Coloniality of Power and Eurocentrism in Latin America, who argues that race functions as the organisational system of class in settler-colonial contexts; race refers to and gives shape to the class position in the means of production in settler-colonial societies, where positions such as “slave” and “slaveowner” as classes are enforced and systematised on the basis of race, naturalising class to the supposed “biological reality” of race.

Through this analysis of colonialism and race we see how even more absurd this white-working-class argument becomes, that it concludes that whiteness is a racial barrier of entry to the proletariat; in effect, very roughly inverting the racial logic of colonial capitalism in order to argue that poor whites are the base of fascism. Noticeably, this accepts the basic fascist argument that whites are an underclass being oppressed by a non-white ‘misfit’ bourgeoisie, who achieved their position through social manipulation, trickery, and liberal social justice programs like affirmative action. Where liberals depart from this formulation is merely to argue that a diverse ruling class is the result of meritocracy as opposed to social engineering.

This is a liberal articulation of fascism: an adoption of the fascist logic that races can be activated as a class, that race is a dormant social energy that can be activated in the minds of a white class, but this argument is used as a means of obscuring white supremacy as a tool of right-wing reaction and mobilisation by tacking on the qualifier of ‘working class’ at the end. In this way, working class becomes the qualifier to white, not the other way around, positioning fascism as a purely lower class phenomenon, something that afflicts only the poor whites, the stupid whites, the uneducated whites. This allows for the obfuscation of the bourgeois character of fascism, and provides fuel for “the tawdry forms of self-satisfied condescension it allows a certain academic or journalistic commentator,” many of whom are themselves white.

[catilinas]

i learned two whole new words today btw :D orotundity and psephology

[lachlanthesane]

...oh my god does the US electoral system not even have preregistration for 16 and 17yos? Good lord, the more I learn about your broken-ass electoral system...

[zahri-melitor]

Getting REALLY tired of seeing everything about recent elections here on tumblr phrased in a ‘lessons for the US voting public to take from this election’ framework.

I mean, I very specifically did not talk about the UK election on here as firstly I was gossiping in all my Aus pseph group chats and didn’t need another outlet, and secondly I know how absolutely aggravating outsider POVs can sound while you're still digesting results (and heck I can follow UK politics well enough to realise it’s a concerning sign that UUP and TUV picked up seats off DUP).

It's just tiresome. The rest of the world doesn't exist to be a little example and homily to the US about what you should do at an election. It's just very...suck it up buttercup, the UK and France elections are not about the US, there is a bunch of psephologically interesting voter behaviour occurring in both, but would it hurt to discuss that in either a national trend or a wider international one with countries that are better comparables?