Political Animals - How U.S. Voters Respond To Candidates Making Farmed Animal Policy Proposals (Faunalytics)

This Faunalytics study examines the impact on vote choice and perceptions of political candidates when those candidates propose changes to U.S. food policy. It focuses on voter responses to policy proposals aimed at supporting or opposing industrial animal agriculture.

Key Findings

Voters prefer candidates who support stronger welfare regulations for farmed animals. Of the eight policy proposals tested in this study, only candidates who proposed to “Strengthen farm animal regulations to reduce the number of animals on factory farms” performed better than candidates who proposed no changes to food policy. In fact, candidates who endorsed this policy position were expected to receive 61% of the vote share in a two-person race, all else equal. Among liberal voters, candidates who said they wanted to strengthen regulations for farmed animal welfare averaged 70% of the vote. These candidates received 58% of the vote among moderate voters and 55% of the vote among conservative voters. In other words, the U.S. public is very willing to reward candidates who push for improved conditions for farmed animals.
Voters punish candidates who support the expansion of factory farming. The two policy proposals that resulted in the lowest vote shares for candidates were “Stop regulations that limit the number of animals on farms” and “Increase government subsidies to meat companies.” Candidates who endorsed these policies were expected to receive only about 40% of the vote in a two-person race and performed worse than candidates who proposed no food policy changes. Giving more taxpayer money to meat companies was unpopular across the political spectrum.
Pro-animal candidates are often seen as more likable, more competent, and more empathetic. Candidates who proposed strengthening farmed animal welfare regulations were seen as more likable, while candidates who wanted to stop regulations that limit the number of animals on farms or increase subsidies to meat companies were seen as less likable. This policy was also associated with higher perceived levels of competence and empathy. Empathy scores were also higher for candidates who proposed an end to new factory farms and who wanted to reduce subsidies to meat companies.
Voters are wary of cultivated meat. Candidates who proposed to “Increase public investment in cultivated meat (also known as cell-cultured meat)” performed poorly in terms of vote share, receiving only 45% of the vote, all else equal. This dropped to 40% among women and to 38% among conservatives. Candidates who endorsed a ban on “lab-grown meat” earned an expected 54% of the vote in a two-person race. This number rose to 57% among women and 62% among conservatives.
A bipartisan coalition for farmed animals is possible. Liberals, moderates, and conservatives were all willing to reward candidates who proposed to “Strengthen farm animal regulations to reduce the number of animals on factory farms.” All three groups also withheld votes from candidates who proposed to “Increase government subsidies to meat companies.” These findings suggest that certain farmed animal-related policy proposals would likely receive support across the political spectrum.
Future research should use experimental methods like choice-based conjoint to isolate cause and effect, as well as the impact of specific attributes. Self-reported data about a participant’s attitudes and beliefs can be a helpful tool. However, this information doesn’t always carry through to actual actions. Researchers working to refine political messaging to help animals should incorporate methods like choice-based conjoints that attempt to mimic reality. For example, these approaches could resemble messaging in the form of a speech or social media post, providing important information about how to make political communication as effective as possible. Experimental methods can also help isolate the effects of individual attributes in order to get a more accurate understanding of behavior.