In the latest New York City elections, integrity was a hot topic. When Zohran Mamdani told Andrew Cuomo “What I don’t have in experience, I make up for in integrity. And what you don’t have in integrity, you could never make up for in experience,” he was echoing what many voters instinctively felt. Politicians, and people, can compensate for other types of weaknesses, but they cannot do so for morality. Even if they do overlook moral weaknesses, voters feel torn about their choice and are dissatisfied. In the recent New York city mayoral elections, when voters picked Andrew Cuomo over Zohran Mamdani, they traded off morality for experience, or any number of other traits they believed Cuomo had and Mamdani lacked. Yet, they felt dissatisfied with their choice.
A doctoral student at Columbia, Joseph Lee, and I surveyed 368 voters in the New York City Mayoral election over a period of multiple days starting with early voting and ending the day of the election, as they were leaving the voting booth in Manhattan. Among those we spoke with, 237 voted for Mamdani, 124 for Cuomo, and seven for Sliwa. We asked them how satisfied they were with their choice on a scale of 1 – 7. Mamdani voters reported high satisfaction, averaging about 6 out of 7, while Cuomo voters were less satisfied, averaging about 4.5. We also asked how hard it was to make their decision on the same scale. Both groups found it fairly easy, but Cuomo voters reported slightly more difficulty (around 3) compared with Mamdani voters (about 2.4).
We find this same pattern over and over again in studies we have been conducting over the past year. In our experiments, we asked people to choose between two fictional candidates who were equally strong overall. The only difference between the two candidates is that one candidate is low on morality and high on another trait such as economic competence, and another candidate is high on morality and low on the other trait. Thus, participants are forced to trade off between morality and a different trait when making their choice. Respondents tend to overwhelmingly pick the moral candidate with only one-third picking the other candidate. This group of one-third respondents who pick the less moral candidate lean Republican. Yet even though they pick the less moral candidate of their own volition, they report being less satisfied with their choice. We don’t observe this effect when respondents are forced to make trade-offs between traits other than morality.
Why does morality and integrity matter so much to voters? For many, it is a core part of who they are. Compromising on morality does not sit well with them, and they are therefore dissatisfied. Another possible explanation is that voters believe people are capable of personal growth on any number of traits; they can learn over time to be diplomatic and can learn economic competence on the job. However, they may believe that morality is a trait that doesn’t change over time and that makes it unique. People are either moral or they are not, and if you elect a morally reprehensible candidate you are stuck with an immoral politician in office. A final possibility is that voters believe they can rely on a moral candidate to make decisions that adhere to their moral principles. There is comfort in that certainty. With an immoral candidate, it’s unclear what guides their decision making.
Choosing a less moral candidate often leaves voters feeling less satisfied, even when they consciously decide to prioritize other traits. This pattern isn’t limited to one election. It shows up repeatedly and has real consequences. Dissatisfaction and regret are negative emotions that can wear voters down over time. If they keep compromising on integrity, the act of voting can start to feel uncomfortable or even aversive. Over time, that lingering unease can discourage participation and contribute to widespread disengagement from the democratic process.
The Cuomo–Mamdani race illustrates this dynamic clearly. Many voters viewed Cuomo as offering greater experience and administrative competence, while Mamdani was perceived as the more morally principled option. Whether or not those perceptions were accurate is less important than the fact that voters felt they had to trade one value for the other, when they were voting for Cuomo. Our research shows that this kind of compromise on morality reliably lowers voters’ satisfaction, even if voters believe they chose the “stronger” candidate on policy.
Voters, you will soon face this dilemma again in upcoming state and national elections. Our findings serve as a warning. To preserve your own wellbeing, think carefully about how your choices will make you feel before casting your vote!
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
