Part of our voting decision-making process is formed by discussions and thoughts about the character traits and the personality our politicians should or shouldn’t demonstrate. A voter’s decision is likely to be based on metrics such as a long-term philosophical endorsement of a party, the desire to change an outcome of an issue or issues, the ability of a candidate to get things done in office, or the ability of a candidate to make a difference. Or straight-out self-interest – the what’s-in-it-for-me vote.
But what about the character traits, the personalities of the voters? Can voting outcomes be set against known parameters of voter character differentiation? What characteristics do we demonstrate that will lead us to our voting decision?
Personality describes the unique patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that distinguish a person from others. A product of both biology and environment, it remains fairly consistent throughout life.
Personality: Definition, Theories, Traits, & Types (verywellmind.com)
Personality typing and understanding afforded by its insights are not new. The work of the Meyers-Briggs Foundation has its genesis in 1942, when Isabel Briggs Myers and her mother Katharine Briggs began the work of developing a “sorter” instrument to help people identify their psychological type preferences […].”
The Myers & Briggs Foundation – Original Research (myersbriggs.org)
“The understanding of type can make your perceptions clearer, your judgements sounder, and your life closer to your heart’s desire.”
Isabel Briggs Meyers.
Personality type is more predictive than age in determining whether or not you identify as a Republican or Democrat. [Emphasis as written]
Of the four personality preferences created by Myers and Briggs, the widest gap in both political affiliation and overall differences is between Sensors and Intuitives.
The main communications difference between Sensors and Intuitives is this: Sensors prefer tangible information, whereas Intuitives prefer speculation and depth of insight. [Emphasis as written.] So while a Sensor will perceive data points individually (one by one) and literally (as they are in that moment), an Intuitive will perceive them concurrently (all at once) and abstractly (as they could be in the future).
Sensors place an enormous amount of importance on the past – institutions, loyalty, traditions, symbols, observances. Even if they don’t always agree with the foundation of that tradition (or are even aware of it), they tend to be very respectful of it – so using language that is not flip, crass or dismissive of tradition and at least acknowledging the benefits of tradition is key, so that Sensors don’t just shut down.
Intuitives do not consciously define the steps that are needed to get from point A to point B because they instinctively leap across all the steps and make snap decisions based on an overall feeling. Communication frustration occurs because a Sensor needs those mechanical details. They want to see a practical application of the information you are giving them, and they want to follow a logical sequence from start to finish.
Does your personality type determine your politics? (truity.com)
All well and good. Makes perfect sense.
But what happens when candidates themselves confuse the decision-making process? A case in point is Christopher Luxon, who drifts between the right and left and presents as left of right and only just right of left. He is failing to retain or attract support according to poll results, and now has fallen beneath the rating of Judith Collins before she was ousted.
Is the personality and political approach of Luxon confusing voters and letting him down in the likeability ratings? He is not charismatic, relatable, or appealing to voters. He does not come across as being one of us. He doesn’t engage. He fails to light a spark of enthusiasm or a flicker of hope, no matter his actual words, because his voter base wants, among other things, respect for tradition and detail. His refusal to work with the Maori Party may tempt voters to support him, time and the election will tell, but there is a real and increasing problem for the National Party that is bigger than its leader.
The National party executive and its Board of Directors, led by President Sylvia Wood, must accept their share of the blame for the failure of their candidate to fire on some, if not all, cylinders. He is baffling his voter base by bouncing off in all directions. There is no A to B, just a series of wishy-washy statements and a lack of solid, dependable mechanical detail. This is not the approach to take with Sensor voters, as the polls show.
More than half of New Zealanders believe Prime Minister Chris Hipkins is performing well, while just a little more than 35 per cent say the same thing about National’s Christopher Luxon.
The latest Newshub-Reid Research poll asked voters what they thought of the performance of the leaders of the two largest political parties.
The results, shared exclusively on Monday morning on AM by Newshub Political Editor Jenna Lynch, shows 55.6 percent of people think Hipkins is performing well and just 18.2 percent think he is performing poorly.
On the other hand, the results reveal 35.5 percent think Luxon is performing well and 34.7 percent believe he is performing poorly.
‘This is bad news’: New poll results reveal if Kiwis think Hipkins, Luxon are performing well or poorly (msn.com)
National’s Christopher Luxon denies his leadership is holding his party back in the polls and says he’s confident he will win Kiwis over before the October 14 election.
Luxon is seen as out of touch by 47 percent of New Zealanders, while Hipkins is seen as out of touch by 35.6 percent, the results reveal.
The National leader told Newshub on Sunday he was the right person to lead the party and he hadn’t considered standing down.
“I don’t think I am [out of touch]. I think for me, I’m really in touch with what’s going on in New Zealand”, Luxon said.
Luxon doesn’t think his leadership is holding National back after poor personal poll results (msn.com)
He may well be really in touch with what’s going on in New Zealand but, as the polls show, he seems to not be really in touch with what’s going on with his voter base. He may be confusing his voters and hence they are abandoning him.
The media, bought and paid for, a shameful purchase by the ex-prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, are a huge component of the problem that National and especially Christopher Luxon face. This is no longer a surprise, but it is a continuing and snowballing work in progress. They are effectively the PR department for Labour and do anything possible to denigrate the National party and its leader.
We need politicians who will work with us – no, they are supposed to work for us. We try to understand them – how about they try to understand us, their voters? Party executives and directors would do well to have a rudimentary idea of how candidates and their personalities will resonate, or not, with voters.
As Isabel Briggs Myers eruditely said, “The understanding of type can make your perceptions clearer, your judgements sounder, and your life closer to your heart’s desire.”
