What Persuades Us To Choose a Political Candidate?

Elections take place in almost every country today, but many of us still ask the same question: what actually makes someone vote for one candidate over another? Even when voters feel like there is “no perfect choice,” and they are indifferent, they still somehow make a decision. Even when several candidates seem similar, one still ends up winning. So, what drives us to make that choice?

At its core, we learn that politics is about persuasion. Candidates are trying to convince us that they understand our problems and that they are the best people to solve them. Dating back to history, in ancient Rome, for instance: politicians often gained support by offering food, entertainment, and public events to keep citizens satisfied. Although modern democracies function very differently, the basic principle remains the same: political leaders seek to persuade voters that they can improve their lives and address their concerns through electoral notices.

In more recent history, during the Great Depression in the 1930s, many voters supported leaders who promised economic recovery or what the country specifically lacked at that point. In the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt became very popular because his “New Deal” that promised jobs, support, and hope during a time of crisis. People were voting based on survival needs and stability, but this is not as valuable for people nowadays.

A similar pattern can be seen in modern elections. In the 2016 United States presidential election, Donald Trump won support from many voters who felt ignored by traditional politics. His message focused strongly on change, national strength, and bringing jobs back. On the other side, Hillary Clinton represented experience and continuity, but many voters preferred a different direction rather than continuing the same system.

In the same year, the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom showed another example of how public feeling can shape political decisions. The “Leave” campaign convinced many voters by focusing on national control, immigration, and independence from the European Union. The “Remain” campaign focused more on economic stability and cooperation with Europe. In the end, many citizens chose Leave because they believed it would give the country more control and sovereignty over the countries future and decision making.

These examples show that voting is often influenced by emotion, identity, and what people believe will improve their lives; not only by facts or detailed policy plans.

What do we look for?

Voters care about different things depending on their situation. Some of us focus more on the economy and jobs which the country may be struggling with at that time. Others care more about healthcare, education, pensions, or safety. Some want change, while others prefer stability. A successful candidate is usually the one who understands what matters most at that moment in society and resonates with the citizens.

Personality is another important factor. People tend to vote for candidates who seem confident, clear, and trustworthy. Good communication skills and strong public speaking often make a big difference. A candidate who connects emotionally with voters can gain support even if their policies are similar to others. Along with this, familiarity also matters. Voters are often more comfortable choosing someone they already recognize. Well-known politicians or former leaders often have an advantage because people feel they already know what to expect from them. But to tie it all together, experience is also crucial. Candidates who have already held political positions are often seen as more reliable, depending on how their mandate went. For example, in many countries, leaders who previously served as ministers, governors, or prime ministers often have stronger chances because voters trust their record or maybe it can be quite the contrary. But the thing is that people already form an opinion about the candidate based on his or her experience.

Networking, personal connections, and perceived trustworthiness are also qualities that many of us look for in a candidate. We often consider whether they are charismatic in their speeches, how they communicate and interact with people, and how they conduct themselves in high-pressure situations.

Rising powers:

In recent years, another trend has become increasingly visible across many democracies. Looking back at the given example with the 2016 United States presidential election. Some citizens have turned towards parties advocating extremist positions. While stability was once one of the main qualities citizens looked for in a government, many people today are willing to support candidates and parties that promise significant change, even when those changes challenge established political norms. This does not necessarily mean that people no longer value stability. Rather, many voters feel that traditional political parties have failed to address their concerns. Rising living costs, housing shortages, immigration debates, economic uncertainty, and a growing distrust of political institutions have led some citizens to seek alternatives outside the political mainstream.

As a result, parties that emphasize national sovereignty, extremism, stronger borders, individual freedoms, or more radical reforms have gained support in a lot of countries around the world. In some cases, traditional parties have lost voters to newer movements that present themselves as challengers to the political establishment.

The United States provides a clear example of this trend. During the 2016 and 2024 presidential elections, Donald Trump attracted many voters by presenting himself as an outsider willing to challenge existing political norms. His campaign focused on themes such as economic nationalism, border security, and restoring what many supporters viewed as a stronger national identity. His message appealed particularly to voters who felt ignored by traditional politicians and believed that major changes were necessary, so people started to look away from stability in a form of government.

By contrast, Kamala Harris and many more traditional candidates often emphasized stability, institutional continuity, democratic values, and gradual reform. While these messages appealed to many voters, others were drawn toward candidates who promised faster and more dramatic change.

A similar pattern can be seen throughout Europe. The Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom demonstrated how many voters were willing to accept uncertainty in exchange for what they viewed as greater national sovereignty and control over political decisions. Likewise, parties on both the right-wing and left-wing of the political spectrum have gained support in countries such as France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden by criticizing traditional political elites and offering alternatives to already established policies.

Figure 1 shows the distribution of seats held by major far-right political parties within the European Parliament. The concentration of seats in countries such as France, Italy, and Germany illustrates the growing electoral influence of these movements across Europe.

The growth of these movements suggests that elections are not only contests between candidates but also reflections of public satisfaction and dissatisfaction with one's country.

When we believe that our concerns are being ignored, we often become more willing to support politicians who promise major change rather than gradual improvement. It is not certain whether these political parties will actually achieve what they promise. However, the fact that many of us have started to support them shows how powerful public dissatisfaction and frustration can be in shaping election results and political decisions in democratic countries.

We choose the candidate we believe will improve our lives the most based on our past experiences, emotions, and expectations for the future of the country and our hope for a change or stability. But keeping count of the recent rise in extremist parties, this can hold a lot of threats for the world in itself. We wish for change but to what length are we willing to put things in danger for achieving this? In what ways do we want to achieve this? Rely on promises made by others or grow and form something together as a society? The power which we all have is questioning ourselves and using our consciences. ~ As Hannah Arendt wrote, “No one has the right to obey.” (The right to question authority, rather then simply accepting it)