That said, I once walked into the voting booth. The ballot had a long list of names and symbols, each screaming for attention. It somehow reminded me of restaurant menus that run multiple pages. Democracy runs on choice, and elections show that choice clearly. Multiple parties, independents, first-timers, rebels and sundry hopefuls – this is what openness is all about. A ballot with too few options would be restrictive. A crowded one shows freedom at work. Yet, when choices increase, clarity begins to fall.
I started with good intentions. I told myself I would select the candidate based on merit. But as the list grew longer, so did the effort to process it. I scanned past the third column and realised I had already forgotten the first. I was now skimming, the way one instantly acknowledges any terms-and-conditions. Soon, I stopped evaluating and started recognising. Familiarity took over from evaluation and recognition became trust.
PARADOX OF CHOICE
This pattern plays out whenever human beings face too many options. Economists call it the paradox of choice. The idea is simple. Ideally, more options should help us make better decisions. In reality, more options make decisions harder. Each new choice needs attention, comparison and mental effort. And when it feels like work, we look for shortcuts.
Research has shown much the same. Patients given fewer treatment options report higher satisfaction than those given many. I can personally vouch for it. Choice in high-stakes situations can produce paralysis rather than empowerment. A shaadi.com profile with 200 matches produces the same drift as a ballot that I just described.
In voting, when familiarity replaces evaluation, we begin to choose between recognisable symbols. A democracy that runs on recognition rather than judgement is one where the loudest win. That’s not what we want. Consider this. A first-time candidate with a clear plan but no money competes against a politician whose name has been on hoardings for twenty years. On a long ballot, after the tenth name, the brain is looking for something it has already seen. And the seasoned one ends up getting the vote.
Economist Lionel Robbins defined economics as the study of human behaviour given scarce means and unlimited ends. That made sense in an era when choices were limited. Today, things have changed. We are not short of options. We are short of attention, patience and the willingness to think things through Democracy should remain open, noisy and gloriously untidy. But openness without the effort to filter it is just noise. The conclusion is simple. In a world full of options, the real skill is not choosing. It is knowing what to ignore.
