Anger and the vote: How what we feel can determine our response to electoral suppression

The logic of voter suppression is simple: make it more difficult or costly for particular voters to show up and they'll simply stay home.

Four years ago, it didn't work out that way in Georgia.

Shuttered polling places in areas with large nonwhite and Democratic populations ensured long waits to cast a ballot - and yet the voters kept coming and stayed on line. Hours ticked by: two, four, ten. When the close election prompted a runoff, the voters faced those staggeringly long lines for a second time. The end result: Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff ultimately won the two Senate seats that the state apparatus was determined to keep in Republican hands.

"When you tell somebody that they're experiencing electoral suppression, they experience anger, and because of that anger, they actually want to participate more," explained Binghamton University Assistant Professor of Political Science Hilary Izatt. "The United States is experiencing what we call democratic backsliding and this effect can help curtail it if you mobilize."

Izatt, who earned her doctorate from the University of Michigan, recently won the American Political Science Association's award for the best dissertation in political psychology. "The Political Psychology of Electoral Suppression: Institutional Manipulation, Emotion, and Mobilization" consists of three papers drawing on observational data and experiments conducted in the United States and Malaysia. The award is a big deal; APSA is the leading expert organization in political science, she said.

As a political psychologist, she studies human behavior in reaction to political stimuli - particularly electoral suppression. The United States has experienced forms of political suppression since its founding, but massive, systemic and visible campaigns to delegitimize the votes of certain groups are a relatively new phenomenon to many people, she noted.

Social science, particularly in the United States, has explored the role of enthusiasm and excitement in political campaigns; Barack Obama's presidential campaign, for example, had hope as its centerpiece. But positivity isn't the only motivator; anger also gets voters to the polls, particularly when democratic institutions begin to fray.

Izatt finds that emotions perpetuate specific patterns of behavior, depending on whether the suppression privileges or prohibits an individual's vote. In short, anger in populations that face voter restriction can drive participation, despite obstacles; happiness in populations benefiting from these restrictions makes them less engaged.

"Voters need to know that suppression is happening and who is being affected by that suppression. Once they know those two things, it can be a mobilization tool," she said.

Anger and enthusiasm

Electoral suppression isn't just a problem in the United States; countries like Malaysia and Indonesia use similar tools. To cement her findings, Izatt conducted survey experiments and case studies in Southeast Asia and the United States, and used observational data from voter files in the state of Georgia.

"George is an interesting case because in the last several elections, they've been making the process of voting for some groups more and more costly," she said.

One popular means involves closing and consolidating polling places in targeted communities, resulting in long lines to cast a ballot; in essence, this amounts to a poll tax because individuals are sacrificing a day's wage to vote. In Georgia's case, the goal was to disenfranchise and disincentivize Black voters who would otherwise oppose the regime in power.

"Closing a polling place is an administrative decision and usually not political. But when you do it systematically enough, it creates voter disparity on Election Day," she said. "I can experimentally show that, as the lines got longer, voters were more willing to wait than in lines that were shorter."

In her research, she also examines gerrymandering, in which voting districts are drawn to benefit particular demographics and political parties. The enthusiasm for gerrymandering transcends party lines; both Democrats and Republicans will cheerfully engage in the practice if it grants them an electoral edge.

<_o3a_p> Like other voter suppression measures, gerrymandering angers marginalized voters once they know about it; those who benefit, however, express enthusiasm, even happiness. Surprisingly, the more enthusiastic voters were about electoral suppression, the less likely they were to turn out.

"Usually, when you have this level of enthusiasm, you should see a much bigger turnout rate, but I find lower turnout associated with higher levels of enthusiasm," Izatt said. "My argument is because we're no longer talking about American democracy; we're talking about American political suppression."

The case of Malaysia

Izatt received a National Science Foundation grant in 2023 to conduct a similar survey in Malaysia; she is currently processing the data. Long-term, she plans to write a book about how electoral suppression affects voter psychology in the United States and other countries.

Malaysia is an interesting comparison to the United States. Traditionally a hegemonic, single-party dictatorship, it also has a long history of grassroots organizing. In the past two decades, though, it's been gaining ground as a democracy - at the same time that the United States has been losing ground.

Malaysian citizens aren't surprised that their votes are discounted and their anger levels tend to be lower as a result. To spark anger and drive engagement, the envelope of restriction must be pushed even further.

Last summer, she conducted interviews in Malaysia, home to a vibrant protest culture. In 2018, the country had its first government turnover in 70 years, disrupting what had been a hegemonic single-party dictatorship. Widespread protest contributed to that change - but it took 15 years to get to that tipping point, she said.

Mass uprisings in the 1980s and '90s were violently suppressed, and people retreated in fear. When citizens saw a new wave of protestors being beaten by the police and jailed, a switch flipped.

"I asked them, 'Are you still afraid?' Across the board, people said no: 'All of a sudden, I got really, really angry and I realized that if there was enough of us, we could do something about it,'" she recounted.

Fear inhibits political participation, and would-be voters or protestors tend to stay home. In short, Malaysia had been slowly working toward democracy and finally reached the tipping point where fear gave way to anger - sparking mass protests and, ultimately, governmental change.

The trend toward authoritarianism has given fear a greater role in the American electoral process than it previously held. But fear doesn't always inhibit engagement. Like anger, it can mobilize voters to respond to a collective threat-seen, for example, in how the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, which overturned the federal legalization of abortion, led to increased midterm election turnout.

"Most of the polling shows that people turned out because of an existential threat; they're afraid of what these policies mean not just for democracy, but for life in America," she said.

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.