In the latest New York City elections, integrity was a hot topic. When Zohran Mamdani told Andrew Cuomo “What I don’t have in experience, I make up for in integrity. And what you don’t have in integrity, you could never make up for in experience,” he was echoing what many voters instinctively felt. Politicians, and people, can compensate for other types of weaknesses, but they cannot do so for morality. Even if they do overlook moral weaknesses, voters feel torn about their choice and are dissatisfied. In the recent New York city mayoral elections, when voters picked Andrew Cuomo over Zohran Mamdani, they traded off morality for experience, or any number of other traits they believed Cuomo had and Mamdani lacked. Yet, they felt dissatisfied with their choice.
A doctoral student at Columbia, Joseph Lee, and I surveyed 368 voters in the New York City Mayoral election over a period of multiple days starting with early voting and ending the day of the election, as they were leaving the voting booth in Manhattan. Among those we spoke with, 237 voted for Mamdani, 124 for Cuomo, and seven for Sliwa. We asked them how satisfied they were with their choice on a scale of 1 – 7. Mamdani voters reported high satisfaction, averaging about 6 out of 7, while Cuomo voters were less satisfied, averaging about 4.5. We also asked how hard it was to make their decision on the same scale. Both groups found it fairly easy, but Cuomo voters reported slightly more difficulty (around 3) compared with Mamdani voters (about 2.4).
We find this same pattern over and over again in studies we have been conducting over the past year. In our experiments, we asked people to choose between two fictional candidates who were equally strong overall. The only difference between the two candidates is that one candidate is low on morality and high on another trait such as economic competence, and another candidate is high on morality and low on the other trait. Thus, participants are forced to trade off between morality and a different trait when making their choice. Respondents tend to overwhelmingly pick the moral candidate with only one-third picking the other candidate. This group of one-third respondents who pick the less moral candidate lean Republican. Yet even though they pick the less moral candidate of their own volition, they report being less satisfied with their choice. We don’t observe this effect when respondents are forced to make trade-offs between traits other than morality…