Emotionally appealing to people is not likely to be the most important consideration of a voter when making their decision. Though emotion can influence the decision of certain individuals; it is not likely to be the only factor that people use to decide their favourite candidate. Voters often prioritise economic and social policy proposals that the candidates make in their manifesto rather than the emotional tone a candidate portrays in their speech. Candidates’ chances of being voted in would not generally depend on whether or not they tell a story about their past that exemplifies their struggle and resonates with their voters. For the purpose of this essay I will define emotional appeal as a candidate attempting to paint a political narrative and when they are making statements not inherently based on any real factual evidence. I will also focus on the voting systems and voters of the UK and the USA which are politically developed and well-established countries. Despite either side of the argument presenting strong views, I believe in modern day society the party and their chances of winning forms the most important factor for voters. The electorate is also likely to favour the past performance of the candidate and have stronger views due to the voters being more educated. This means that emotional factors are not the main factor that voters use to make their decision.

Voters do not always solely base their decisions on policies proposed by the candidates in their manifesto. They look at external factors, which can include the emotional appeal of the candidate but they mainly prioritise the past performance of the candidate instead. Firstly, this may be due to the increase in access to the news both digitally and through various newspapers thus people in the UK and the USA are increasingly more informed on political matters and events within parliament.  In addition, a large proportion of young people get their news from social media and directly from politicians increasing their awareness of political matters. This is supported by the established education systems in both countries which means people are more educated and likely to be involved in politics. This means that the past performance of the political parties is considered possibly even more than the manifesto of the candidates and certainly over narratives such as anti-immigration or patriarchal narratives. If a politician demonstrates their ability to create effective and logical decisions in parliament, especially if the candidate was previously in a position of power and performed well, then this is likely to override the other candidate, if they have proved to be better than them in this regard. If a candidate has mishandled events or created ineffective policies this may foreshadow their term if they were to be re-elected. For example, many voters for Keir Starmer may have not agreed with his policies, especially those who have children attending private school (UK Labour government plans to impose VAT on private school fees), but they voted for him due to the poor way the Conservatives lead by Sunak handled the finances in the UK as well as managed the country generally during the fourteen years in power.

Furthermore, in both the UK and the US there are two rival parties that gain the largest proportions of votes every election cycle so they can be classified as two party systems. Thus, voters whose political and economic values align with the policies and ideals of the smaller parties may not vote for those marginal parties. This is because it is unlikely that they will ever get anywhere close to the majority so instead they vote for one of the two major parties as they have a higher chance of actually winning. This is called tactical voting and is done by a large proportion of voters in these two countries. Those marginal parties’ voters are also unlikely to be swayed by any emotional appeal from smaller political parties but only that of the two main parties. Yet even then this is not the main factor voters consider as they may favour the narrative of another party yet vote for another due to tactical voting.

One may argue that emotional appeal through political narratives is the most prominent factor that voters use to make their decision. Social media is one way in which political narratives can be spread and is becoming increasingly common. Social media platforms such as X, Facebook or Tiktok are full of political parties and candidates creating memes and expressing their opinions. Often this is done by mocking the other political party and their representatives which can make people form opinions based on the emotional impact of such message. In addition, people are more likely to go off what they see on television of how the candidate presents themselves, the way they speak but also off narratives portrayed on social media more than the actual polices as it is more convenient and takes less effort to base decisions on what people see from day to day. Alongside politics being fairly absent from curriculums in the Western world, education is not as widespread as once perceived. Therefore, voters are more likely to base their decisions on political narratives and emotional appeal. However, there has been an increase in fact checking technology which is being used in televised presidential elections. Also, the accessibility of the internet means that people are able to fact check what they have seen on social media. Although the rise of AI has increased misinformation causing people to create beliefs based on inaccurate knowledge, the very fact that people are still seeking to find out the correct information shows how they are less likely to believe political narratives and instead go by the facts, even if they may be inaccurate from time to time. Examples of strong emotional appeal can be seen recently with the two attempted assassination attempts of Donald Trump. Whilst these did draw further attention to the former US president, it is unlikely to have had a major impact upon his number of supporters. This is due to his strong right-wing views making even emotional events like these difficult to sway people's minds. However, most importantly, also due to the rise of technology, social media has also spread information that he may have staged the whole thing to gain publicity. This will not greatly influence people's decisions as avid Trump supporters will deny the allegations which are not strictly evidence based and people against Trump will be justified in not voting for him. In addition, both UK and the US has seen people tend to be entrenched in their political beliefs (e.g. leave vs remain in Brexit and Trump vs Biden/Harris). This polarisation is fuelled through social media where people with certain beliefs only listen to “echo chamber” of their side of the argument and are not willing (or sometimes they are not exposed) to the counter argument. This can create false perception that one side is the only way. Ultimately this all shows how the rise of technology has also spread information of emotional appeal that does not influence people's voting decisions greatly thus it cannot be the most important reason for who people vote for.

Overall, I believe that emotionally appealing to voters is not the main factor which determines their decisions on candidates, but it is tactical voting and the past performance of parties/ candidates that a voter uses to make their choice. This is due to political narratives being exposed as lacking truth which makes a voter doubt the party thus they instead chose to base their vote upon other factors. Tactical voting is the most prominent factor as personal views can be pushed to the side and the matter of who is most likely to win is considered by a rational voter in the UK and US.  Also, the past performance of certain candidates can override emotional appeal due to people thinking about whether the promises made by parties in their manifestos and emotionally appealing speeches or tweets are true and will be executed if they come into power. Thus, I believe that emotionally appealing to voters is not the main factor which determines their decisions on candidates.