Mandates: Voters’ cognitive dissonance


Nine months ago, John Key said National had a mandate for part sales of state assets.

He’s repeating the claim again following the Supreme Court decision against Maori water interests.

So I point back to my blog at the time where I explained why mandates are a political mirage, as people DON’T vote for the reasons politicians think they do.

Yes, National was VERY clear at the last election that if it won, it would proceed with part sales of assets. But I explain how election wins do not mean people vote for specific policies.

NZ Prime Minister, John Key, is risking what I term “voter dissonance” when he claims that winning an election gave him a mandate to sell shares in some State assets.

Cognitive dissonance occurs when voters disagree with the position of the Party for which they vote. Voting is effectively a…

As a result, I believe there are only exceptional, single issue, elections, where a mandate could ever be said to be given. 

Mandates: Voters’ cognitive dissonance

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s