2016 Election Night

During the Democratic primary, Bernie Sanders pushed for a universal single-payer health care system he dubbed “Medicare for All.” Sanders’s home state of Vermont tried, and failed, to implement a single-payer system in 2014. Costs and political considerations doomed the Vermont plan, but nevertheless, Sanders has thrown his support behind Colorado Amendment 69, which would create a statewide universal health insurance system funded by a 10 percent tax on payrolls and other income. In return for these payments, all Colorado residents would receive comprehensive medical coverage with no deductibles. The system would replace employer-provided and private insurance but exist alongside programs like Medicare and Medicaid. (Participants would still be free to buy additional insurance if they wanted.) An independent 21-member elected board would govern the ColoradoCare system, whose budget of about $38 billion would dwarf the size of the current state government. Proponents, who include Sanders and Gloria Steinem, say that the system would help slow down increases in health care costs and eliminate wasteful administrative costs. Opponents argue the amendment would give Colorado the highest income tax rates in the country and that doctors might leave the state if they weren’t satisfied with the payments the system provided. Abortion rights groups also oppose the measure, concerned that the program would reduce access to abortion due to a 1984 amendment to the state constitution that bans government money from going toward the procedure. The measure appears unlikely to pass. A recent poll showed widespread opposition to it, with 65 percent of respondents saying they’d vote no.

The first exit polls are out. Perhaps the most notable thing about them is the favorable ratings for each candidate. It seems to match the pre-election polls with Clinton and Trump both being seen as unfavorable by a majority of voters, but with Trump being more unlikable than Clinton. Only 44 percent have a favorable rating of Clinton, but an even lower 37 percent have a favorable view of Trump.

The answer, as you might have suspected, lies in human psychology — and is nicely stated in Bethany Albertson and Shana Kushner Gadarian’s recent book, “Anxious Politics.” People don’t like uncertainty and the emotional arousal that comes with it. And one way that we cope with uncertainty is by seeking out new information. Now if our uncertainty is about whether there’s a lion behind a cluster of trees, seeking out new information seems like a winning strategy. But if we’re anxious about an election outcome, the information we’re seeking might not be out there quite yet. As Albertson and Gadarian write, “although individuals seek information in the pursuit of lowering anxiety, the information that they are attracted to may not help them accomplish this goal.” So keep reading …