Rational choice theory has been the go-to theory for scholars of elections for many years. It sees voters, parties and other actors as rational, self-interested actors. They are involved in cost-benefit calculations to maximise their ‘utility’ (usually votes or the policies they want).

It could be said that the theory is a bit like Marmite. Some love it, others hate it. But actually, I suspect that many people don’t like it – but just don’t have an alternative. And so RCT remain in our recipes unquestioned. Start with Downs, because, otherwise, what are your assumptions?

Enter the human reflexivity approach

If you’re looking for some alternative theoretical assumptions to study voters, elections and electoral integrity to rational choice theory then you might be interested in the 𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙡𝙚𝙭𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙖𝙘𝙝, is introduced in an article out now in Representation and free to read: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00344893.2023.2290714

The approach draws from a stream of sociology which provides a critique of rational choice theory (+constructivism). The reflexivity approach draws from Margaret Archer and realist social theory.

The heavy sociology theory bit (before the elections bit)

The Reflexivity Approach (‘TRA’) holds that individuals are not free-floating atoms (as per RCT) making rational cost benefit analysis. RCT starts from premise that, to echo the political slogan, there is ‘no such thing as society,’ just individuals. This isn’t so.

Instead TRA holds:

1. Actors (e.g. voters etc. as they are called, rather than individuals) are embedded into prior social contexts which with they interact creatively and with reflexivity.
2. These prior context shapes their understandings and choices. Individuals do not appear as if by magic. They are socialised into a specific setting. 
3. The prior context does not overly-determine what they do. People are not robots, they do not follow ‘behavioural laws’. They can actually come to understand the situation that they are in and respond creatively. People can come to understand ‘sociological laws’ and then change their actions as a result.
4. Human agents, through reflexivity, in turn, contribute towards the creation of new conditions. People can be change makers.
5. Actors are also embedded into a strategic context shaped by other actors. For voters, this means in which parties, candidates, electoral officials and other actors. They can act reflexively too.

The Human Reflexivity Approach applied to elections

That’s theoretical heavy lifting. How does this help understand elections?

The voter experience is more than cost–benefit analysis. It involves a richer set of sensual experiences. We define it as:

‘the simultaneous process of gathering and responding to knowledge, perceptions and emotions about the electoral process through observing and (non)participating in electoral activities. The citizen is reflexively situated in this experience and is involved in a process of interpreting, re-interpreting, and responding to stimuli, structures and other actors.’ 

So there is a lot more to study…

The voter experience is also situated in a temporal analytical cycle at moment T3. It is structured by T1 and T2 – but can be a force for societal change at T4 and T5.

A vignette of voter id helps to illustrate the approach (the detail is in the article). The headline is that voter id laws do more than just altering the ‘calculus of voting’ as per RCT – although that is important and part of the story. They shape experiences, feelings, emotions and strategic agency – we can get counter-mobilisation efforts in response to voter identification laws. They can affect EMBs, electoral officials, parties and candidates – who in turn respond to shape the voter experience. In this setting historical contexts and meaning matter. ‘Voter identification laws’ bring meanings to some voters in some countries, than they do to others…

What’s next?

The new framework raises a research agenda to explore the linkages in the conceptual model. e.g. What is the nature of the voter experience in different countries? What shapes the voter experience? What are the consequences of the voter experience?

We set out in broad brush strokes the nature of the voter experience around the world today. The headlines are that:

• Older and more educated voters tend to have a more positive experience.
• Poor voter experiences are lead to citizens disengaging from the voting process.

The special issue progresses by picking up this research agenda. More to follow!