Why the reason behind cooling off period may throw past elections results into disrepute

Photo courtesy of whi1e

Many years ago, the Singapore government banned exit polls and the reasons for the ban was widely believed to be the so-called emotional impact in influencing the voters, which will result in them voting non-objectively.

This “human emotions” bogeyman has struck again in the form of a proposal by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to include an extra day of non-campaigning that acts as cooling-off period before Polling Day itself. The reason cited was that the voters should devote an extra day to calm down and think rationally.

“I think 24 hours after the last excitement of the election campaign period, the rallies, the door-to-door campaigning, the adrenaline flowing, the clash in the mass media as well as in person, perambulating vans blaring away loud speakers, it’s good to have 24 hours to just calm down, think about it – tomorrow we vote.”

– Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong

The opposition in general has voiced its disagreement with Lee’s proposal, citing the fact that the ‘ruling party could “disguise” its campaign as news items in the mass media, but the opposition do not have such a luxury. The aspect of this disagreement has been well-covered and it is not the intention of this article to raise this point.

However, the proponents of this proposal should realize one thing – its potential to open a can of worms. During the 1997 General Elections, the PAP obtained 65% of the votes, with the opposition managing 34.6% and independent candidate, 0.4%. In the 2001 General Elections, the PAP won 75.3% of the votes with the opposition managing 24% and independent candidates, 0.7%. And for the most recent elections in 2006, the PAP obtained 66.6% of the votes with the opposition managing 33.4%.

Suppose the proponents of this proposal wish to argue that voters are in need of an extra day to ‘calm down’ and ‘reflect rationally’ after the ‘emotional highs’ of campaigning, then there must be an acknowledgement that emotional voters who vote irrationally has been a problem in the past, when there wasn’t any extra day of “non-campaigning and cooling-off”. Supporters of the ruling PAP party may wish to argue that emotions may have swung votes towards the opposition.

However, proponents of this proposal must also acknowledge that emotional influences do go both ways, assuming IF they are really correct. How does the influence go both ways? The answer is the form of positive and negative emotions. A positive emotion towards the ruling PAP or opposition will supposedly sway votes towards either. In contrast, a negative emotion towards any side will sway votes against either.

Thus, the tough question for proponents of this proposal by Lee to answer is whether the emotional highs of electoral campaigning have bearing on the results of past elections in 2006 (66.6% PAP, 33.4% non-PAP), 2001 (75.3% PAP, 24.7% non-PAP) and 1997 (65% PAP, 35% non-PAP) and elections in the years beyond. This is because the nature of the proposal is suggested as a SOLUTION to the so-called perceive problems of voters being ‘emotionally high’ and unable to vote rationally.

As argued earlier, assuming the proponents are right, emotions could play a part in swaying votes to the PAP or against it, going both ways in varying proportions.

Hence, proponents have little choice but to acknowledge that this emotional factor is a problem, and hence the solution of the proposal. But the can of the worms is opened when this leads to the next question – can we regard the past results of 2006, 2001, 1997 elections and those earlier a fluke because of the emotional factor involved due to the absence of an extra day of “cooling-off”? Since the line of arguement is that voters are swayed by emotions, it should follow that the results of our electoral polls in the past are also inaccurate because they are caused by our voters’ irrationality.

But wouldn’t that throw the results of our previous elections into disrepute?

A potential case of testing OB markers
When Lee announced the proposal, he was asked whether the 24-hour period will apply to online sites.

“On the Internet, it’s grey and also the policing is not so straight-forward but even then, in principle we should say today is a quiet day. I cannot control several million videos on youtube but your website, what you’re putting up in your own name, I think that should end the day before the cooling-off day.” Lee said.

Thus, one way perhaps to test this OB marker is to try putting up an article that objectively points out why one shouldn’t vote for a certain political party on the Polling Day eve in his own name. Note the emphasis on the word “objective”. Thus, such an article raises objective, well-argued reasons why the certain party shouldn’t be supported, such as the pitfalls of its proposed socio-economic policies or the lack of welfare proposals for instance. Analytical articles will also fall into this category. Obviously, emotional statements will be left out. Thus, what will be written is a rational piece, and will not fall into the category of articles that stir up emotions and influence voters to be irrational. There will be a level of influence, yes, by an appeal to the voter’s rationale, and NOT his emotions.