Insight
Operating Philosophy
NOVEMBER 6, 2025
The Voter as a Variable: Rethinking Democracy Through Behavioral Data and Identity Anchoring
Contents
Brief explainer of the shift from mass messaging to data-driven microtargeting in U.S. campaigns—how AI, psychographics, and emotion-based tactics tailor appeals to individuals and reshape voter influence.
Core drivers: rich voter data, machine-learning segmentation, and rapid A/B iteration that adapts message, timing, and format to each person’s identity and emotional cues.
Downsides include opaque messaging, manipulation of unconscious biases, and fragmented information environments that weaken accountability and deepen polarization.
Introduction
In democratic theory, voters have long been viewed as rational decision-makers or as members of broad social groups with stable preferences. Electoral campaigns traditionally sought to inform or persuade these voters through general appeals on issues or ideology. Today, however, the voter is increasingly treated as a variable – a target to be measured, modeled, and influenced through data-driven techniques. Advances in big data analytics and behavioral science mean that campaigns can tailor messages to the unique identity and emotional profile of each individual. This article explores how next-generation models of identity, emotion, and influence are reshaping electoral strategy in the United States. It combines theoretical discussion with case studies from recent elections to illustrate the shift from traditional models of voter decision-making to behavioral and psychographic approaches. Key implications for democratic accountability, transparency, and polarization are examined, and policy recommendations are offered for the ethical use of these powerful tools.
From Rational Choice to Behavioral Models of Voter Decision-Making
Traditional models of voting behavior assumed that citizens make choices based on stable preferences or group loyalties. For example, rational choice theory envisions voters as calculating individuals who weigh candidates’ policy positions against their own interests. Other classic frameworks like the socio-psychological model (the “Michigan model”) emphasized long-term party identification and social identities (class, religion, etc.) as anchors of vote choice. In these models, campaigns could influence voters at the margins – through broad messaging or issue framing – but voters’ core preferences were treated as largely pre-existing and rational.
In contrast, behavioral models incorporate insights from psychology and acknowledge that voter preferences are often malleable, constructed in the very act of decision-making. Research in behavioral economics and cognitive psychology shows that people rely on heuristics and can be swayed by how choices are presented, triggering biases rather than purely rational calculations. In the political realm, this means voters do not simply have fixed preferences – their opinions can be subtly shaped by the context and information they encounter during a campaign. Modern campaign strategists leverage this fact: instead of treating voter choice as a given input, they see it as an output that can be engineered by altering the voter’s information environment and tapping into unconscious biases.
Behavioral social science has thus given campaigns new predictive and persuasive power that earlier election theories lacked. As one scholar notes, 20th-century political science never achieved highly predictive models of voter behavior – but in the 21st century, the marriage of data and psychology has brought a “magic of prediction and control” within reach. Campaigns now use models of unconscious cognitive processes to “alter voting behaviour and public opinion formation” in ways that often elude voters’ own awareness. Crucially, these techniques bypass the rational, conscious mind and appeal directly to emotions and identity. The shift can be summarized as follows:
-
Traditional approach: Voter decisions driven by rational evaluation of information or social identification with party and ideology. Campaigns appeal to reason and broad interests.
-
Behavioral approach: Voter decisions influenced by cognitive biases, emotions, and identity cues. Campaigns appeal to psychological triggers, framing choices to construct preferences rather than merely reflect them.
Psychographic Profiling, Big Data, and AI in Voter Targeting
At the heart of this transformation is the rise of psychographic profiling and big data analytics in political campaigns. In the past, campaigns segmented voters by a handful of demographics (e.g. age, race, gender) or geographic districts. Today’s political operatives build rich, high-dimensional profiles for millions of individuals, drawing on an unprecedented range of data. These profiles may integrate traditional demographic information with details of a person’s consumer habits, social media behavior, web browsing, voting history, and more. Powerful algorithms analyze this trove to infer each person’s traits, beliefs, and even likely psychological vulnerabilities.
Using these insights, campaigns can craft micro-targeted messages tailored not only in content but also format and timing to maximize impact on each recipient. This practice, known as psychographic targeting, goes beyond conventional targeted advertising. Rather than simply appealing to a voter’s stated party or issue preferences, psychographic techniques adjust messaging to match a voter’s personality (e.g. introversion vs. extroversion), emotional triggers, values, and fears. For example, the tone, imagery, and language of an ad might differ if a voter is identified (through data analysis) as highly neurotic and security-focused versus optimistic and open-minded.
Early academic work by Kosinski and colleagues famously showed that a person’s Facebook “likes” could predict their Big-5 personality traits more accurately than their friends could. Political data firms seized on such findings. By 2016, data-driven campaigns were compiling thousands of data points per voter and using machine learning to identify what issues each individual was most persuadable on. One prominent example was Cambridge Analytica’s platform, which claimed to classify U.S. voters by personality and target them with tailored political ads. Cambridge Analytica (working for the Trump campaign) harvested personal data on some 50 million Facebook users and used it to develop psychometric profiles during the 2016 election. Their models rated individuals on traits like openness or neuroticism and matched messaging to these profiles – a stark illustration of how big data and AI now enable “marketers to understand the personality of people being targeted in order to tailor messages,” as Cambridge’s CEO bragged.
Behind the scenes, AI algorithms crunch vast datasets to optimize campaign outreach. Machine learning models segment voters into ever-finer categories and even generate content. In 2020, both major U.S. campaigns employed data science teams to guide spending and messaging. The Republican National Committee (RNC) reportedly boasted of maintaining over 3,000 datapoints on every voter in America. These data fueled sophisticated voter scoring models (for likelihood to support, persuadability, turnout probability, etc.) and automated decision systems for ad targeting. By analyzing patterns, AI can reveal micro-clusters of voters who might respond to a very specific appeal – for instance, suburban homeowners concerned about local school safety, or young urban renters passionate about climate policy. Campaign strategists then deploy programmatic advertising to deliver customized messages to those niche audiences.
One defining feature of this new approach is the iterative, real-time adaptation of strategy. Digital campaigns now resemble a continuous experiment: they test thousands of ad variations, monitor how different subsets of voters react, and let algorithms boost the effective ads while culling the duds. This feedback loop, powered by AI, means a campaign can pivot messaging on the fly. Indeed, campaign insiders from 2024 describe AI as “the secret sauce… driving everything from real-time sentiment analysis to personalized ad blasts.” If a particular message isn’t resonating, AI systems can diagnose why – perhaps the wording fails to spark the desired emotion in a key demographic – and suggest adjustments or new angles. In short, data-driven campaigns treat the voter as a dynamically modeled variable, continuously updating predictions of how to influence each person’s choice.
Identity Anchoring in the Digital Campaign Era
While psychographic profiling delves into individual personality, identity anchoring remains a fundamental axis of voter behavior and a focal point for targeted messaging. Core identities – such as race, ethnicity, class, gender, religion, and partisan affiliation – deeply influence how voters interpret political information. Modern campaigns harness these identities both as data points and as emotional anchors to craft resonant appeals.
In practice, this often means tailoring different messages for different identity groups, a strategy greatly amplified by digital microtargeting. A campaign might emphasize racial identity and justice issues when communicating with Black voters, economic populism to working-class voters, and religious freedom or cultural values to evangelical Christian voters. These appeals are not new to politics, but what is new is the precision with which they can be deployed to individuals under the radar of the broader public.
A stark example emerged from the 2016 Trump campaign’s use of “dark” Facebook ads aimed at dissuading specific communities from voting. Internal data revealed that Trump’s digital team, aided by Cambridge Analytica, segmented voters into categories including one labeled “Deterrence” – disproportionately composed of Black Americans. Approximately 3.5 million Black voters in swing states were placed in this category and targeted with negative ads about Hillary Clinton, with the goal of suppressing turnout. These “identity anchoring” efforts exploited racial identity: for instance, some ads highlighted Clinton’s 1990s remarks about “super-predators,” seeking to alienate Black voters by suggesting she lacked empathy for their community. Because the ads were microtargeted on Facebook, they were invisible to other audiences and journalists, avoiding public scrutiny or rebuttal.
Campaigns also use identity cues positively to anchor support. A candidate might appear in ads alongside symbols or figures that resonate with a particular identity group – for example, featuring military veterans in outreach to military families, or using church backdrops and biblical references in content for religious conservatives. Digital data helps identify who should receive which version of these tailored appeals. During the 2020 election, analysts observed that Donald Trump’s campaign produced an enormous array of Facebook ads, many aimed at narrow slices of the electorate defined by combinations of traits. In the final month before the 2020 vote, Trump’s team ran more than twice as many distinct Facebook ads as the Biden campaign, and Trump’s ads were far more likely to be seen by extremely small audiences. The Trump campaign’s strategy indicates a heavy reliance on identity and interest segmentation – delivering specific messages to tightly defined groups (for instance, Cuban-American voters in Florida received different content than rural farmers in the Midwest, and so on).
The concept of digital behavior as identity also comes into play. In the age of social media, a person’s online behavior – the websites they visit, the Facebook pages they like, the hashtags they use – can itself define virtual “identities” that campaigns target. For instance, being an avid follower of a gun rights Facebook group might flag someone as a “Second Amendment voter” regardless of their other demographics. Campaigns use such digital footprints to infer identities and values: algorithms might classify users as “environmentalists,” “patriots,” “tax-conscious homeowners,” etc., based on their online engagements. These inferred identities then become anchoring points for customized outreach. By appealing to an aspect of the self that the voter strongly identifies with, campaigns make the political choice feel personally relevant.
Emotion and Influence: Using Affective Data in Campaigns
Beyond demographic or psychographic categories, emotions have become a central variable in modern campaigning. Political communication has always sought to stir feelings – hope, fear, anger, pride – as these motivate action. What’s changed is that campaigns now possess data-driven tools to measure and evoke emotions with new granularity, often in real time.
One aspect is sentiment analysis on social media and online content. Campaign war rooms routinely monitor Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and other platforms to gauge the public’s emotional response to events or messages. AI-powered sentiment analysis can classify posts and comments as positive, negative, angry, joyful, etc., providing campaigns with a rolling barometer of voter mood. For example, if a particular attack line in a debate generates a surge of angry reactions from a key demographic, the campaign can pick that up within hours and adjust its strategy.
Campaigns also increasingly experiment with biometric and psychophysiological measures to understand emotional reactions—using facial expression analysis, galvanic skin response, or eye-tracking to measure subconscious reactions. Neuromarketing firms now offer these insights to political clients, merging psychological data with predictive analytics to optimize emotional resonance in ads and speeches.
Implications: Democratic Accountability, Transparency, and Polarization
Behavioral and identity-based targeting challenges democratic norms of transparency and accountability. Microtargeted ads allow campaigns to tell different—and sometimes contradictory—stories to different audiences. This undermines the shared public sphere and weakens voters’ ability to evaluate candidates based on consistent, verifiable claims.
The opacity of digital platforms compounds the issue: while ad archives exist, they rarely show full targeting parameters or the range of variants. The result is a fragmented democracy in which citizens inhabit personalized information universes, deepening polarization.
Ethically, the distinction between persuasion and manipulation blurs. Psychographic targeting often seeks to exploit unconscious biases and emotions rather than present rational arguments. When voters are nudged toward choices they might not make under full information, autonomy suffers. In a democracy, informed consent—not engineered emotion—must anchor political choice.
Conclusion
The reimagining of the voter—from a rational citizen to a data-defined, psychologically profiled variable—marks one of the most profound shifts in democratic politics. Next-generation campaigns combine behavioral science, AI, and emotional analytics to engage voters at a granular level, often bypassing conscious deliberation.
While these tools promise efficiency and personalization, they also risk converting elections into invisible laboratories of influence. Safeguarding democracy requires transparency, limits on microtargeting, and respect for data privacy. Above all, it requires reaffirming that voters are not datasets to be optimized but individuals whose informed, free choices form the foundation of legitimate government.
Want to stay up to date?
Learn more about Moonbrush as we reimagine the human role in an AI-future.
Human Insight.
Machine Precision.
Unreal Results.
QUICK LINKS
SUPPORT
LEGAL
