i detailed explanation give me the reason why this happens, give me the biological reasons 

How Emotions Hijacked a Nation's Election: A Story of Feelings Over Facts

In the last election of a certain country, the results were not driven by policies or government data but by something far more powerful—emotions. Despite the abundance of facts and logical arguments, voters made decisions based on their fears, biases, and deeply ingrained feelings. It was a vivid example of how human nature often overrides reason, especially when the stakes are high. This is the story of how emotions took control of an election, leaving rational thinking behind.

The Emotional Brain vs. The Rational Brain: A Battle for Control
In a small, vibrant town, an old man named David sat on his porch, flipping through pages of government documents that outlined the policies of the two competing political parties. David had always been a man of reason. He had spent his life making decisions based on logic and facts, carefully weighing the pros and cons before coming to any conclusion.

But this election was different. Despite knowing the policies like the back of his hand, David found himself overwhelmed by an emotion he hadn’t expected—fear. The news reports had been relentlessly discussing the dangers that awaited the nation if the "wrong" candidate was elected. Stories of economic collapse, job losses, and societal unrest filled the airwaves. His logical brain told him to stay calm, but his emotional brain, the part rooted in the limbic system, began to take over.

It’s a story as old as time. The human brain, evolved over millennia, houses both an emotional and rational component. The emotional brain reacts quickly and instinctively, often in response to fear or uncertainty. The rational brain, on the other hand, takes its time, processing facts and considering the bigger picture. Yet, in times of stress, like during a heated election, the emotional brain tends to take control. David’s rational mind was trying to fight back, but the flood of fear was too much to ignore.

Cognitive Biases and Emotional Traps
Just a few houses down, Maria, a single mother of two, was glued to her phone, scrolling through social media. Every post she saw confirmed what she already believed—the opposing party was dangerous. It didn’t matter that the facts presented by the government contradicted many of these claims. Maria was caught in the trap of confirmation bias, where people only seek out information that supports their pre-existing beliefs.

It wasn’t that Maria was uninformed. In fact, she had been following the election closely, but her emotional attachment to her political group clouded her judgment. She had grown up with strong political convictions, passed down from her parents and her community. These beliefs were part of her identity, and any information that challenged them was quickly dismissed as “fake news.”

Cognitive biases like confirmation bias and the availability heuristic play a significant role in how emotions shape our decisions. People tend to favor information that supports what they already believe, and they often rely on the most immediate examples that come to mind. For Maria, the fear-mongering posts she saw every day were more convincing than the government’s data because they reinforced her emotional responses.

Group Dynamics: The Power of Social Identity
Across town, a group of young activists gathered in a park, waving signs and chanting slogans for their favored candidate. They weren’t just supporting a political party; they were defending their social identity. For them, this election wasn’t about policies or facts—it was about belonging to a group, being part of something larger than themselves.

Group dynamics play a crucial role in political decision-making. People derive a sense of identity from the groups they belong to, whether it’s a political party, a social movement, or a cultural community. These group identities can heavily influence decision-making, often leading to an “us vs. them” mentality. This emotional allegiance to the group can overshadow rational thought, making it difficult for individuals to step back and consider the facts objectively.

In the park, the young activists chanted slogans, not because they had studied the policies in depth, but because they felt a deep emotional connection to their cause. They believed in their candidate, not because of logical arguments, but because supporting this candidate made them feel like part of a community that shared their values and dreams.

Fear and Uncertainty: The Dark Side of Emotions
As the election day drew closer, emotions reached a fever pitch. Fear was the dominant emotion in the air, as both parties ramped up their campaigns, using emotional narratives to sway voters. Politicians knew that fear was a powerful motivator. When people are scared, they’re less likely to think rationally and more likely to make decisions based on instinct.

One candidate released an ad showing images of economic disaster, blaming their opponent for potential job losses and poverty. Another candidate focused on national security, painting a picture of chaos if they weren’t elected. The facts were buried beneath the emotional appeals. The more people felt afraid, the less they engaged with logical arguments.

At a local coffee shop, a group of friends sat around a table, discussing the election. “I don’t even know what to believe anymore,” one of them said, shaking his head. “But I just can’t take the risk of voting for the other guy. What if everything they’re saying is true?”

Fear and uncertainty are powerful tools in politics. They tap into the emotional brain, making it difficult for people to think rationally about the long-term consequences of their decisions. When fear takes over, logical deliberation often falls by the wayside.

The Role of Media: Amplifying Emotions
Meanwhile, social media was ablaze with posts, comments, and emotional debates. News outlets ran sensational headlines, designed to capture attention and trigger emotional reactions. The media, both traditional and social, amplified the emotional tone of the election, making it even harder for facts to break through the noise.

Stories of corruption, scandal, and impending doom filled every screen. Whether true or not, these narratives were compelling because they played on people’s emotions. Emotional content tends to spread more quickly and widely than factual information, especially on platforms designed to keep users engaged. In this media-driven environment, emotions were king, and rational analysis took a backseat.

David, who had spent weeks trying to make sense of the policies, found himself glued to his television, watching heated debates and dramatic news reports. The logical part of his brain was still fighting to be heard, but the emotional flood coming from every channel was hard to resist.

Short-Term Thinking: The Consequences of Emotional Decisions
As the election came to a close, the nation was divided. Emotions had dominated the discourse, and voters had cast their ballots based on fear, anger, and group loyalty. The long-term consequences of these decisions were yet to be seen, but many feared that the focus on short-term emotional satisfaction would lead to unintended outcomes.

In the days following the election, Maria, David, and the young activists reflected on their choices. Had they made the right decision? It was hard to tell. The emotional intensity of the election had clouded their ability to think critically about the future.

When emotions drive political decision-making, voters tend to focus on short-term outcomes, seeking immediate relief or gratification rather than considering the long-term consequences. This can lead to policies that satisfy emotional needs in the moment but have unintended repercussions down the road.