The bustle of campaigns, lofty promises, and smiling faces on billboards are part of the democratic ritual that we presume to perform with full awareness and rationality. However, while citizens believe they freely decide who to vote for, neuroscience has begun to reveal a rather uncomfortable truth: the human brain makes political decisions up to ten seconds before we become conscious of them. This reality, documented by recent research, challenges our understanding of democracy and free will in the political sphere. Neuropolitics, an emerging field that merges neuroscience and political science, is revealing that we are less deliberative and more emotional than we would ever want to admit.

When Albert Einstein claimed that "it is easier to split an atom than a prejudice," perhaps he did not imagine how accurate he was from a neurological perspective. Contemporary studies show that more than 80% of our decisions, including political ones, come from prior non-conscious brain activity. This phenomenon explains why, when faced with compelling data that contradicts our beliefs, the brain simply discards them. As happened during Bill Clinton's administration, when 55% of Republican voters claimed that the public deficit had increased, when in reality it had been reduced by 90%, according to research by Larry M. Bartels of Princeton University.

Neuropolitics has identified that our political preferences are formed through what Antonio Damasio called a "somatic marker," a brain area where emotions and feelings are regulated that serves as a frame of reference for our decisions. This marker functions as an automatic alarm that warns us about potentially dangerous options based on previous experiences. Studies using technologies such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and facial coding are allowing researchers to observe in real time how voters' brains react to different messages and candidates, confirming that, as Goleman points out, "we are not rational beings with emotions, but emotional beings who reason."

This knowledge has revolutionized political marketing. In June 2015, the Prime Minister of Turkey implemented strategies based on neuroscientific studies to generate greater emotional connection with the electorate, achieving victory after revising his speeches when previous analyses showed no emotional connection with voters. In Latin America, more than ten countries have used neuropolitical consultations, including Juan Manuel Santos' reelection campaign in Colombia in 2014. Social networks have become a field of experimentation where short and concise messages, loaded with words like "commitment," "loyalty," and "efficiency," seek to activate the mirror neuron system discovered by Giacomo Rizzolatti, which allows capturing the minds of others through direct emotional stimulation.

The eye-tracking technique, which originated about a century ago in traditional marketing, is now systematically applied in political campaigns to determine which images, phrases, or slogans generate greater emotional connection. This information is particularly valuable for reaching undecided voters, who according to various studies, are the ones who really define elections. Persuasion experiments during the 1976 US presidential elections revealed that only 3% of voters with defined party affiliation changed their vote despite intense persuasion techniques. As George Lakoff states, we don't simply vote guided by interests, but by what we identify with, confirming that the perception of identity is fundamental in electoral behavior.

Even genetics seems to play a role in our political preferences. Dr. Ryota Kanai maintains that "the political phenotype may be reflected in brain structure," while studies conducted on identical twins by John Alford, Carolyn Funk, and John Hibbing found a high probability of coincidence in political orientation, suggesting a similar brain configuration. However, the fact that these coincidences are not absolute demonstrates that context, education, and social factors also significantly influence.

But then, are we facing a new form of electoral manipulation that is more sophisticated and invisible? If so, understanding how our emotions work in politics could both strengthen and undermine democratic processes. While this knowledge allows designing more empathetic campaigns closer to true citizen concerns, it also opens the door to more effective manipulations that could reduce our agency and capacity for informed decision-making.

The future of democracy may depend on how we manage this new frontier of knowledge. Neuropolitics invites us to recognize that our political decisions have never been purely rational, but also warns us about the risks of a world where those who control this knowledge could determine electoral outcomes with surgical precision. It is time to accept that, in the voting booth, we are not just citizens reasoning, but also brains feeling. The challenge now is to build a democracy that recognizes this reality without allowing it to become a tool for mass manipulation.