How do the American people choose whom they will vote for? Certainly the views of each candidate play a major role. Advertising plays a large part as well — it is often pointed out that the amount of campaign funding each candidate spends can predict the outcome of the election. But how much does a candidate’s presence matter? How much does his image matter? Does the pitch of his voice matter? What about his height?

In the field of political anthropology, there is something called a Big Man — a certain type of group leader whose position is not inherited. Instead, Big Men are gradually recognized by their peers.

In his famous article on Big Men in Melanesia and Polynesia, “Rich Man, Poor Man, Big Man, Chief,” the anthropologist Marshall Sahlins noted the importance of certain factors in becoming a Big Man. Among other things, height is particularly important. Often, the Big Man is just that — a big man.

The resemblance to our own leadership system is intriguing. Like Big Men, our presidents are elected by their peers, and as Sahlins noted, they have long-term goals in the best interest of the society at large. And most interestingly, like Big Men, our presidents are tall. A review by scientists at the University of Groningen found that in 58 percent of American presidential elections, the taller candidate won. Taller presidents are more likely to be reelected, and win more popular votes as well. Indeed, it seems Napoleon Bonaparte was so famously short because leaders are typically tall.

But height isn’t the only biological factor that goes into leadership. Fluctuating asymmetry, which is the amount of bodily asymmetry. is directly related to ability in group performance tasks. This isn’t some abstract biological notion — fluctuating asymmetry is the biological basis for handsomeness.

Why is it that taller, better-looking people seem more likely to become leaders and perform well as leaders? One idea is that being tall and handsome can improve emotional well-being, which naturally is helpful in any field that requires confidence. Or, perhaps taller, better-looking people are more socially dominant and are able to garner support and favors from a large group of followers. Others are drawn to them. This is definitely true of Big Men, who, as Sahlins points out, are able to achieve their short-term goals by networking. But it may also be the case that certain people simply look presidential.

Whatever role these inborn factors play in how presidents are elected, it could very well be that we are subconsciously paying as much attention to the candidates’ physical attributes as we are to the issues.

So how do we solve this problem and focus more on the candidates’ plans and ideas? Perhaps we should hold all presidential debates by radio. Unfortunately, a similar phenomenon occurs in that medium as well – men with lower voices have repeatedly been rated as more dominant by both men and women. In order to make an informed decision, it seems our only solution is to be more aware of our innate tendencies to judge based on the superficial.

Nicky Sethi is a contributing writer. Email him at [email protected].