The result of the general elections has been

The result of the general elections has been released. The power of the people (including proportional parties and the future of the people) of the government and ruling party only garnered 108 seats.

There may be numerous factors, but I would like to point to a change in the ideological landscape of our society as the most important factor. Our society has changed into an environment where progressive ideas that were previously considered heretical, that is, ideologies aimed at 'peace' and 'equality', have become mainstream. In addition, voters are no longer trapped in a single-line confrontation structure of conservative-progressive or democratic-national power, but are divided into various ideological groups.

While the Democratic Party has generally acted in accordance with such a terrain, the president of Yoon Suk Yeol and the power of the people have acted completely differently from such terrain, which has resulted in this election.

When I analyzed the ideological topography of Korean people in 2012, it was divided into six ideological groups. (Graph)

Surprisingly, the equality/peace group (the egalitarian and traditional progressive group aimed at inter-Korean peace), which is the traditional progressive ideology, accounted for 40% of the total, and there were 6% of the reform-first group (the group with strong prosecution reform and anti-Japanese tendencies).

What's more surprising is that the liberal/capability group, which can be called the traditional conservative ideology, accounts for only about 20% of the total. Many experts' claims that Korea is an overwhelmingly conservative-dominant society were mistaken.

The other three groups were the eco-friendly New Growth Group with 20 percent of the respondents (business-friendly, welfare-friendly and eco-friendly), the populist group with 10 percent of the respondents (the so-called "Lee Dae-nam" tendency), and the people's livelihood priority group with 6 percent of the respondents (self-employed tendency). It is difficult to classify them as traditional conservatives and progressives, but about 35 percent of the respondents have a clear ideological orientation.

This is the analysis I conducted while working on the Democratic Party's Refresh Committee in the summer of 2022. Even though it was right after the presidential election defeat, the Democratic Party's potential support base was so solid, and the basis for the people's power was already collapsed.

The survey was special. The popular voter policy ideology survey asks voters directly about their political identity or political party unity. These are questions such as, "Are you conservative or liberal?" and "Which party do you support, the Democratic People's Power Justice Party?"

These surveys have a big problem. Ordinary people do not decide for themselves whether they are conservative, progressive, or supporters of any party in their daily lives. What is normally formed is one's ideology, that is, policy preference. It is not until the election time that this preference is converted into 'conservative vs. progressive' and 'Democratic Party vs. People's Power', which appears as the approval rating of each force.

So, we surveyed 3,000 people and conducted a cluster analysis focusing on usual policy preferences. It is a method of dividing people into meaningful clusters according to their answers after asking about their preferences for about 30 policies. The six clusters that emerged are the policy ideology groups that usually exist in our society.

The party they will support during the election is not pre-determined. Whether or not to support depends on the social situation at the time of the election and the strategy each party develops.

Let's look at the last presidential election, for example. The power of the people imported a very new person named Yoon Seok-yeol as the presidential candidate, and he was able to win even in the extremely disadvantageous electorate. It was a success of combining various groups.

President Yoon Suk Yeol's ideological identity as a candidate was not clear. Under these circumstances, it appears that Lee Joon-seok united the populist group, centering on the existing conservative supporters, the liberalist group, and the conservatives within the party, centered on the pro-business political color, united the eco-friendly new growth group. Some equal peace groups even joined. They succeeded in combining different voter groups centered on anti-Moon sentiment.

However, this is a very fragile coalition. It will inevitably become more vulnerable, especially after taking power. The ruling party must actually implement its policies because the voters who voted for it are divided into so disparate groups that no matter what the policy is implemented, there will be an opposing group and support can be withdrawn.

However, President Yoon seems to have had a big illusion from the beginning. He acted as if his supporters were very solid. He should have cooperated even if he begged. However, he did not even meet the opposition leader, saying he would not deal with criminals. He should have shown his competence by working with the National Assembly.

However, President Yoon rejected bills sent from the National Assembly in succession, ignoring the results of the hearings, and pushed ahead with personnel appointments. A certain group of voters would have been cut off each time a decision was made. His supporters had been completely cracked just one year after he took office.

The general election came in this situation. The Democratic Party of Korea was in a much more favorable situation in terms of the voter landscape, but also implemented a strategy that somewhat matched that terrain. He continued the strategy of appealing to the supporters of the Equal Peace Group. Progressive legislation, such as the Yellow Envelope Act, was passed by the National Assembly and sent to the president. The president's veto would have helped the Democratic Party politically. This is because the Equal Peace Group's trust would have grown. This stance did not falter during the general election period. Politically, he fiercely criticized the Yoon Suk Yeol government and continued a progressive policy stance.

The power of the people also used strategies to rally its supporters. Many analyzed this as an hate competition between the two parties. However, the Democratic Party's strategy of gathering power was clever, but the strategy of gathering power of the people was foolish. This is because the electorate's landscape was the opposite. Chairman Han Dong-hoon called for the abolition of activist groups and criticized the opposition party as a criminal group, but the group of voters who would sympathize with the slogan would have been only a part of the traditional 20% conservative. Nuclear power plants and tax cuts were advocated, but only a few groups would agree on this topic.

The eco-friendly new growth group is the most important group that should have been appealed by the people's power. This group, however, may have been the one who most seriously criticized the economic incompetence symbolized by the apple price and the crushing price incident. In order to appeal to them, they should have talked about showing economic competence and fighting the climate crisis. In other words, they should have come up with an economic vision differentiated from the Yoon Suk Yeol government and an agenda to respond to the pro-growth climate crisis such as RE100. However, Chairman Han Dong-hoon continued to wage an ideological offensive. Many of the 20% eco-friendly new growth groups will have voted for President Yoon Suk Yeol, and many of them will have gone to the polls to judge this government this time.

To make matters worse, Lee Joon-seok defected from the party and founded the New Reform Party. At the same time, many of the populist groups would have left the power of the people. Some of the liberal groups would have been shaken. Nevertheless, the power of the people made no effort to keep them. However, this group is small but has weak political cohesion. For the New Reform Party to expand further, it should have appealed to the eco-friendly new growth group or dug into the traditional conservative group, the liberalist group. It seems that there was not enough time and ability to do so.

The Cho Kuk Innovation Party made good use of this electoral district. The 6% reform priority group may look small but show great political cohesion. It even pushed the open Democratic Party to the floor four years ago. The slogan "three years is too long" is exactly right in the ears of this voter group, which considers prosecution reform as its ground task. It is also a slogan that the Democratic Party of Korea cannot dare to shout.

The reason why the Cho Kuk Innovation Party was able to gain a certain level of support as soon as it emerged may have begun when some of the Equal Peace Group joined the enthusiastic support of the Reform First Group. Once the support began to expand, some of the eco-friendly new growth groups that supported President Yoon Suk Yeol may have joined, agreeing to the "incompetent regime judgment."

The unfortunate side is the Green Justice Party. In 2022, the base of the Green Justice Party has already collapsed. The distinction between the ideological orientation of the traditional progressive party-supporting voter group and the ideological orientation of the Democratic Party base has actually collapsed. There must be differences, but they are not enough to form statistically meaningful clusters. It is not the fault of the Justice Party or the Green Party at all. That is the case with the voter landscape. It would have been possible to overcome this difficult situation only with a completely different imagination. Unfortunately, it does not seem to have been easy.

The result of the proportional representation party vote is symbolic. In addition, the Democratic Union and the Cho Kuk Innovation Party received more than 50% of the vote. A majority coalition of Korean society has been formed. The figure is possible only when the equality peace group and the reform priority group are united, and eco-friendly new growth groups are added.

Many analysts called the general election a hate election. There was also an overflowing analysis that voters cast hate votes. He talked on the premise that the one-line frame of government support = conservative = national strength vs government check = progressive = Democratic support has been implemented. I have also read several columns saying that the policy has disappeared and only judges remain.

I do not agree.

Voters already form a diverse spectrum of ideological clusters to the extent that the European multi-party system is suitable. Political parties are just not properly appealing. The results of this general election were also carried out in conjunction with the strategies of political parties in the ideological orientation and policy preference of Korean voters. This is what we learned as a result of cluster analysis.

When I was in graduate school, I learned cluster analysis from Professor John Little, a master of marketing theory. The professor taught me to use it to establish management strategies, but it is also quite useful for reading people's political and ideological topography.

People's ideological groups exist first, and whether they support a particular candidate or party is determined next. It is the same principle as the marketing theory that people's preferences come first, and then their preferences for a particular brand come next. However, people do not explicitly state these ideologies and tastes. We must read them step by step through research and analysis.

In this election, voters carried out their ideology by effectively neutralizing the outdated policy paradigm in the upcoming election process. The pledges on regional development that Yoon Suk Yeol had made while holding discussions on people's livelihoods were neutralized through the election. unprepared policy pledges such as the incorporation of Kimpo into Seoul and the relocation of Sejong the National Assembly by Chairman Han Dong-hoon were also neutralized with votes. Civil engineering pledges such as putting roads and railroads underground were also neutralized. In that sense, this election was a policy election.

The majority of voters are not locked in a confrontation between the two parties or a verbal war. They vote on their preferred values and policies