Lying has sadly become almost expected in our politicians, but we might at least expect voters to prefer candidates who tell the truth over those who don’t.  Alas, research from the University of Bath suggests that isn’t actually the case.

The study found that even when voters indicate that things such as trust and legitimacy are important things they look for in a candidate, it’s still the candidates who are most likely to renege on their election promises that get ahead.

The findings emerged after volunteers participated in a game-theory experiment to understand the importance of trustworthiness in various election scenarios.  The “election” was held over two stages, with the first involving individuals vying against each other to secure their party’s candidacy, like with the American primaries, and then a process more reminiscent of the presidential election.

Each of the “candidates” in the experiment was asked to say how much they would invest (out of 100) as a measure of just how eager they were to gain selection.  This investment would be time, money, or effort that would be put into the selection process.  Those who invested the most would be most likely to progress to the next round.

Standing for office

If chosen to stand for office, the candidates would then need to choose how much they would promise to voters in the upcoming election in an attempt to secure their vote.  Then, if they were elected, they would have to explain whether those promises would be kept or not.

The results reveal that the candidates that were most likely to be selected were those who made high investments in the first phase, but who also reneged on their promises once elected.  In other words, the people most eager to get elected were usually the ones most likely to break their promises.

“Our study highlights why it may not be too surprising to find candidates on the campaign trail who lie. This should concern us all given the low levels of trust in politics,” the researchers say.  “There is a clear paradox here in terms of an electorate which says what’s missing in politics is greater trust, yet results which indicate that candidates who lie more, somehow still have a higher chance of gaining office.”

Of course, it’s also common in game theory for people to be punished when they are found to have lied, such that we’re less likely to trust them in the future, so it’s not clear how people react when it’s been shown that candidates renege on their promises and then seek re-election a second time.

With trust in politics and democracy at such a low ebb, however, it is perhaps beholden on the electorate to do a better job of holding politicians to account for the promises they make, and punish those who don’t uphold the grand pledges they make to secure our vote.  The researchers also highlight how things like fact-checking and transparency around campaign finances would also help.  Indeed, they even suggest that campaign promises could be made binding, but given that most democratic systems are governed by the parties themselves, this seems unlikely to ever make it into reality.