It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Lindsay Lohan never ceases to amaze. But on Thursday night, she did so not because she got her third DUI or had another fight with her mother – she announced she will be voting for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Why? "I just think employment is really important right now," the actress, who often finds herself without work, explained on the pink carpet at the Mr. Pink’s Ginseng Drink event in L.A...
Three days earlier, the 26-year-old tweeted that the public would soon “hear my thoughts on our next president” – as if we had been eagerly awaiting it. In early September, after the first presidential debate, Lohan went on a Twitter rampage, during which she tweeted none other than Barack Obama asking him to consider tax breaks “for those that are listed on Forbes as 'millionaires' if they are not,” although it’s unclear what she exactly meant by that (she later deleted the comment).
“So, as of now, Mitt Romney. As of now.” So does that mean her vote could change come election day?
Lindsay Lohan came out in support of Mitt Romney yesterday.
While most would, at first glance, write this off as gossip, it's the latest instance of an evolving trend that jeopardizes President Obama's chance at winning the White House.
Lohan, by all accounts, is a typical low-information voter. And low information voters, like it or not, will decide this election.
The first person to pick out this trend was Dave Weigel at Slate after sportswriter Buzz Bissinger endorsed Romney after his positive debate performance. Bissinger, Weigel notes, was a low information voter. He ignored the election, watched the debate, took everyone's word for it on the facts, and backed Romney.
But Bissinger is emblematic of millions of Americans. These people don't follow politics, don't understand the issues with depth, and plan to vote based on what little information they've gleaned.
Lohan is a low information voter convinced that (a) employment is really important, (b) thinks that employment is not being sufficiently handled by the White House right now and (c) thinks that Mitt Romney is better equipped to handle employment.
That arguably logical sequence is all that it takes for a low-information voter to support Mitt Romney. The thing is, there are millions of voters like her. That should terrify the Obama campaign.
American pollster and political scientist Samuel Popkin coined the term "low-information" in 1991 when he used the phrase "low-information signaling" in his book The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Low-information signaling referred to cues or heuristics used by voters, in lieu of substantial information, to determine who to vote for. Examples include voters liking Bill Clinton for eating at McDonald's, and perceiving John Kerry as elitist for saying wind-surfing was his favorite sport.
Low-information voters are disproportionately white and working-class. Their views are more moderate than those of high-information voters, they are less likely to vote, and are looking for a candidate they find personally appealing. They tend to be swing voters, and they tend to vote split-ticket more than well-informed voters do, researchers say because they lack a coherent ideology.
A 2012 paper by six American political scientists called "A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics" challenged the idea that Republicans want a low-information electorate, and argued instead that both major American parties do. Noting that 95% of incumbents in the highly polarized House of Representatives win re-election despite voters' preference for centrist representation, the paper theorizes that voters' infrequent penalizing of extremist behaviour represents not approval, but a lack of attention and information.
I have seen two attitudes toward LIVs. The first is that they are reclaimable, if only somebody -- the president, the Democrats, the media -- can get the right information to them. The second attitude is a hand-wringing sense of cynical hopelessness on the part of liberals who see LIVs as having an inherent character flaw. In their minds, LIVs are either too lazy to seek out relevant information, too dumb to act in a way that would maximize their own interests, too apathetic or selfish to care about what's best for their fellow citizens, or simply brainwashed automatons who vote the way they're told.
Yet liberals believe that if conservative voters only had more information, they would recognize liberal values as objective and universal -- they would turn off Fox News and unite to end global warming, support universal health care, back unions and women's rights, and so on. Obviously, they don't. And this means to liberals that conservative populists have character flaws that lead them to become low-information voters who screw things up for everyone.
Third, they need to understand how brains work: If the facts don't fit morally based frame-circuits, it's the frame-circuits that stay and the facts that go out the window. All political parties should aim to communicate facts, but to do so successfully they have to take into account voters' moral systems that constrain party values. Those moral-system differences are among the facts that need to be discussed.
Wow charles1952, things are really bad. This may not be very nice to say but is LIV = Idiot? Because that is how I interpret the description of this voter category. The nation is heading for burn out. Soon we may have elections as per Soviet Union, one candidate so as to "simplify the voting process"
Lohan, by all accounts, is a typical low-information voter. And low information voters, like it or not, will decide this election.
There's a lot to be said for your interpretation, especially if you stretch the definition of "idiot." Some LIVs are morons, of course. If the median IQ is 100, then a full half of the population is below that. Some really can't make sense of political issues.
Wow charles1952, things are really bad. This may not be very nice to say but is LIV = Idiot? Because that is how I interpret the description of this voter category. The nation is heading for burn out. Soon we may have elections as per Soviet Union, one candidate so as to "simplify the voting process"