'The Irrational Electorate'

Voters have great difficulty judging which aspects of their own and the country’s ­well-­being are the responsibility of elected leaders and which are not. In the summer of 1916, for example, a dramatic ­week­long series of shark attacks along New Jersey beaches left four people dead. Tourists fled, leaving some resorts with 75 percent vacancy rates in the midst of their high season. Letters poured into congressional offices demanding federal action; but what action would be effective in such circumstances? Voters probably didn’t know, but neither did they care. When President Woodrow ­Wilson—­a former governor of New Jersey with strong local ­ties—­ran for reelection a few months later, he was punished at the polls, losing as much as 10 percent of his expected vote in towns where shark attacks ­had occurred.

New Jersey voters’ reaction to shark attacks was dramatic, but hardly anomalous. Throughout the 20th century, presidential candidates from incumbent parties suffered substantial vote losses in states afflicted by droughts or wet spells. Shenkman argues that “‘throw the bums out’ may not be a sophisticated response to adversity but it is a rational one.” However, punishing the president’s party because it hasn’t rained is no more “rational” than kicking the dog after a hard day at ­work.²³

Recommended

Did You Catch Kamala's Awkward Pause When Bret Baier Asked This Question? Matt Vespa

Advertisement