There is such a concept in the literature. It describes a segment of people who are reluctant to express their political preferences. For some reason, these are generally voters of conservative parties. This is a concept that has long been referenced to explain the election results in Turkey. However, it has been the subject of scientific research and entered the literature as a result of the interest generated by the surprise experienced in the 1992 parliamentary election in England. Social scientists have researched the secret of why the Conservative Party, which has been in power on the island for three terms, won the election for the fourth time - although it seemed certain that it would lose according to the polls.

The explanation they found is that conservative voters showed a different attitude in different ballot boxes outside... While going to the election after a period of power in which serious economic difficulties were experienced and poverty and unemployment increased, some supporters of the Conservative Party were hesitant to express their personal preferences, but when they went to the ballot box, they did what they knew.

While everyone around criticizes the ruling party fiercely - mostly for justified reasons - there is a mass of people who are ashamed to publicly defend their party and even say that they will continue to vote no matter what, for their own reasons. In England, this social phenomenon was noticed after the 1992 election, but when they looked back, they saw that similar situations had occurred in previous elections, although not to this extent.

***

Recently, the same issue came to the fore in the US presidential election won by Trump. The Republican candidate, who appeared behind in the polls, won on election day. This means that some of the voters were ashamed to say that they would vote for Trump. Because the dominant approach in the media was that if someone like Trump became the US President, it would be a source of disaster for the country. Supporting such a candidate and defending his election did not seem to be a preferable position in society. That's why some of those who would vote for Trump could not express their intentions before the election.

In fact, this behavior model has been observed in America on a different level much earlier. In the 1982 California Governorship Election, black candidate Tom Bradley was ahead in all pre-election polls. But the black candidate surprisingly lost the election. Thereupon, research began to ask "How does this work?" Because in the USA, survey companies do not announce the results of their predictions in order to direct the voters and create perception. They know that if they do this, they will lose their credibility and will never be able to do business in this sector again. Therefore, no one evaluated the result as "manipulation of the surveys". Members of relevant disciplines have pondered what the social phenomenon that misleads survey companies might be.

The conclusion they reached is again a "shyness-related" situation. With the Bradley wind blowing around, some voters were worried that they might be seen as racist if they said they would not vote for a black candidate. When they asked, he said he would vote for Bradley. But when he went to the polls, he put his seal on the candidate in his heart.

***

This issue has been on our agenda since the rise of the Welfare Party in the 1990s. Tayyip Erdoğan's victory as the Mayor of Istanbul in 1994 and the Welfare Party's emergence as the first party in 1995 brought a sense of surprise to many people, as they did not appear in the polls. In fact, the contradictory picture that emerged is not a surprise, since it is known that public opinion polls were mostly used as a tool for perception manipulation and that the media was not very inclined towards objective reporting - except for a few serious institutions. However, it is certain that the findings and findings put forward by social psychology research to explain the election surprises in Western countries are also valid in our society.

There are those who will remember that there were always surprises, both with the rise of the Welfare Party in the 1990s and with the elections won by the AK Party since 2002. Some attributed these surprising results to the relatively low level of social visibility of conservatives. People who tended to vote for conservative parties were not seen much because they were from the relatively poor and uneducated segments of society. That's why we couldn't be sufficiently informed about their political tendencies.

There may be some truth in this view, but at least it does not fully explain "the current situation". As a matter of fact, the British example, which gave its name to the model, is not only about conservatism. It's also about being a voter of the ruling party. This is about the mass's capacity to tolerate the mistakes of the government.

So it seems that the real issue is “shyness” again. The tension between the difficulty of defending that the country is well governed and everything is going well and the color of the game. Conflict of rational preferences and emotional tendencies.

There is such a concept in the literature. It describes a segment of people who are reluctant to express their political preferences. For some reason, these are generally voters of conservative parties. This is a concept that has long been referenced to explain the election results in Turkey. However, it has been the subject of scientific research and entered the literature as a result of the interest generated by the surprise experienced in the 1992 parliamentary election in England. Social scientists have researched the secret of why the Conservative Party, which has been in power on the island for three terms, won the election for the fourth time - although it seemed certain that it would lose according to the polls.

The explanation they found is that conservative voters showed a different attitude in different ballot boxes outside... While going to the election after a period of power in which serious economic difficulties were experienced and poverty and unemployment increased, some supporters of the Conservative Party were Hesitant to express their personal preferences, but when they went to the ballot box, they did what they knew.

While everyone around criticizes the ruling party fiercely - mostly for justified reasons - there is a mass of people who are ashamed to publicly defend their party and even say that they will continue to vote no matter what, for their own reasons. In England, this social phenomenon was noticed after the 1992 election, but when they looked back, they saw that similar situations had occurred in previous elections, although not to this extent.

***

Recently, the same issue came to the fore in the US presidential election won by Trump. The Republican candidate, who appeared behind in the polls, won on election day. This means that some of the voters were ashamed to say that they would vote for Trump. Because the dominant approach in the media was that if someone like Trump became the US President, it would be a source of disaster for the country. Supporting such a candidate and defending his election did not seem to be a preferable position in society. That's why some of those who would vote for Trump could not express their intentions before the election.

In fact, this behavior model has been observed in America on a different level much earlier. In the 1982 California Governorship Election, black candidate Tom Bradley was ahead in all pre-election polls. But the black candidate surprisingly lost the election. Thereupon, research began to ask "How does this work?" Because in the USA, survey companies do not announce the results of their predictions in order to direct the voters and create perception. They know that if they do this, they will lose their credibility and will never be able to do business in this sector again. Therefore, no one evaluated the result as "manipulation of the surveys". Members of relevant disciplines have pondered what the social phenomenon that misleads survey companies might be.

The conclusion they reached is again a "shyness-related" situation. With the Bradley wind blowing around, some voters were worried that they might be seen as racist if they said they would not vote for a black candidate. When they asked, he said he would vote for Bradley. But when he went to the polls, he put his seal on the candidate in his heart.

***

This issue has been on our agenda since the rise of the Welfare Party in the 1990s. Tayyip Erdoğan's victory as the Mayor of Istanbul in 1994 and the Welfare Party's emergence as the first party in 1995 brought a sense of surprise to many people, as they did not appear in the polls. In fact, the contradictory picture that emerged is not a surprise, since it is known that public opinion polls were mostly used as a tool for perception manipulation and that the media was not very inclined towards objective reporting - except for a few serious institutions. However, it is certain that the findings and findings put forward by social psychology research to explain the election surprises in Western countries are also valid in our society.

There are those who will remember that there were always surprises, both with the rise of the Welfare Party in the 1990s and with the elections won by the AK Party since 2002. Some attributed these surprising results to the relatively low level of social visibility of conservatives . People who tended to vote for conservative parties were not seen much because they were from the relatively poor and uneducated segments of society. That's why we couldn't be sufficiently informed about their political tendencies.

There may be some truth in this view, but at least it does not fully explain "the current situation". As a matter of fact, the British example, which gave its name to the model, is not only about conservatism. It's also about being a voter of the ruling party. This is about the mass's capacity to tolerate the mistakes of the government.

So it seems that the real issue is “shyness” again. The tension between the difficulty of defending that the country is well governed and everything is going well and the color of the game. Conflict of rational preferences and emotional tendencies.