Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
How Irrational Are Voters?
Some interesting press about a very interesting new book by Bryan Caplan, an economics professor at George Mason University: The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies.
The New York Times Magazine gives it a once-over, summing up its message thusly:
Bryan Caplan, an economist at George Mason University, has attracted notice for raising a pointed question: Do voters have any idea what they are doing?....Caplan argues that “voters are worse than ignorant; they are, in a word, irrational — and vote accordingly.” Caplan’s complaint is not that special-interest groups might subvert the will of the people, or that government might ignore the will of the people. He objects to the will of the people itself.
In defending democracy, theorists of public choice sometimes invoke what they call “the miracle of aggregation.” It might seem obvious that few voters fully understand the intricacies of, say, single-payer universal health care. (I certainly don’t.) But imagine, Caplan writes, that just 1 percent of voters are fully informed and the other 99 percent are so ignorant that they vote at random. In a campaign between two candidates, one of whom has an excellent health care plan and the other a horrible plan, the candidates evenly split the ignorant voters’ ballots. Since all the well-informed voters opt for the candidate with the good health care plan, she wins. Thus, even in a democracy composed almost exclusively of the ignorant, we achieve first-rate health care.
The hitch, as Caplan points out, is that this miracle of aggregation works only if the errors are random. When that’s the case, the thousands of ill-informed votes in favor of the bad health plan are canceled out by thousands of equally ignorant votes in favor of the good plan. But Caplan argues that in the real world, voters make systematic mistakes about economic policy — and probably other policy issues too.
The Times' author Gary J. Bass misses one of the book's most interesting ideas: the principle of "rational irrationality." This goes beyond the standard public choice concept of "rational ignorance" (where voters aren't educated on policy because it doesn't pay off personally for them to be so) to point out that, since people get some pleasure out of certain irrational beliefs, and in a voting process in which we have almost zero chance of affecting the outcome it doesn't particularly cost us anything to indulge them, people have economically sound reasons to not bother being rational when they vote. Indeed, they don't bother doing so, he maintains (with scads of evidence) in his book. I first referred to this concept of Caplan's in the pages of reason in this May 2003 review essay about public opinion research and democracy.
A review of Caplan's book in the lefty mag In These Times is in many ways a more thorough explanation of what Caplan has to say (author Christopher Hayes does understand and explain the centrality of "rational irrationality" to Caplan's thesis) and, despite ideological differences, gives some kudos:
It’s tempting to dismiss Caplan’s thesis out of hand, because it’s so self-consciously “provocative” and because he’s translating an old discredited anti-democratic argument into the jargon of econocentric elite-speak. But if you support democracy, you must confront the fact that voters can often be stunningly under-informed and that majoritarianism run amok can lead to persecution, hatred and injustice. Reading Caplan’s book, then, is both bracing and necessary because it forces the reader to stare into the abyss—an abyss the author seems only too happy to jump into.
Caplan blogs at Econlog. He contributed to a reason interview roundtable on the Federal Reserve in our November 2006 issue.
Umbriel@voicenet.com|5.29.07 @ 4:26PM|#
Like those articles from a while back about too many choices
leading to unhappiness, I cringe at the thought of how this will be
used by those who want to legislate away "wrong thinking"
(particularly after reading a lot of the fawning pro-Chavez
rationalizations currently swirling around the blogosphere).
Fortunately, this book at least sounds like a good argument in
favor of limited government... even if practically no politically
active people outside the Libertarian Party are likely to chose to
interpret it that way.
|5.29.07 @ 4:26PM|#
The good thing about democracy isn't that we get to vote for the
guy we want, it's that we get the opportunity to vote out the
incumbent...
...maybe there are other good things about democracy too; maybe I
just can't think of any right now.
Fluffy|5.29.07 @ 4:34PM|#
Ken makes a good point.
The initial purpose of the American democracy was to provide a
check on the accumulation of power by those entrusted with the
state.
Direct translation of the popular will was not particularly
foreseen or, I would argue, even desired.
Since that time, the concept of democracy has morphed into a theory
that essentially holds that there is no such thing as the Good
until the will of the people declares what the Good is. That's a
lot taller order for democracy to fill than merely being a tool
available to occasionally "throw the bums out".
|5.29.07 @ 4:36PM|#
This all reminds me of the "everyone's opinion matters" bull
that we feed our children. That only applies as children when
everyone is equally ignorant about everything, and in certain
situations as adults. We also never teach our children (nor were
taught ourselves) the difference between matters of opinion and
matters of fact.
The democracy defenders always elude to totalitarianism as the only
alternative, and seemingly forget that we could always keep
democracy, but relieve people of the burden of making so many
collective choices if we merely limit the power of government. Then
the pressure to choose the right/most-moral/seemingly-best
policymaker to make policies for everyone everywhere wouldn't be
nearly as great.
Grotius|5.29.07 @ 4:38PM|#
Fluffy,
If you read the Federalist Papers and other like commentary from
the time the purpose of many of the founders was largely one
concerning national security.
Anyway, I ain't the first person to comment that the American
Constitution was the most radically democratic founding document
that the world had likely ever seen. Consider the dramatically
expanded franchise associated with the election of the ratification
delegates.
Grotius|5.29.07 @ 4:39PM|#
Reinmoose,
Well, there is always aristocracy or an aristocracy masquerading as
a democracy.
|5.29.07 @ 4:40PM|#
I would generally agree with each analysis posted above with one
caveat: you don't need "majoritarianism run amok" to have bad
policy under a Democratic system.
All you need is a stubborn, willful and organized minority. That
will always beat a disorganized, apathetic majority. That explains
the persistence of bad policies that polls often show that
majorities oppose. Those same majorities just cannot be
bothered.
|5.29.07 @ 4:45PM|#
Study: 38 Percent Of People Not Actually Entitled To Their
Opinion
CHICAGO-In a surprising refutation of the conventional wisdom on
opinion entitlement, a study conducted by the University of
Chicago's School for Behavioral Science concluded that more than
one-third of the U.S. population is neither entitled nor qualified
to have opinions.
"On topics from evolution to the environment to gay marriage to
immigration reform, we found that many of the opinions expressed
were so off-base and ill-informed that they actually hurt society
by being voiced," said chief researcher Professor Mark Fultz, who
based the findings on hundreds of telephone, office, and
dinner-party conversations compiled over a three-year period.
"While people have long asserted that it takes all kinds, our
research shows that American society currently has a drastic
oversupply of the kinds who don't have any good or worthwhile
thoughts whatsoever. We could actually do just fine without
them."
In 2002, Fultz's team shook the academic world by conclusively
proving the existence of both bad ideas during brainstorming and
dumb questions during question-and-answer sessions.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/study_38_percent_of_people
|5.29.07 @ 4:45PM|#
This sounds like a bunch of elitist crap.
When you vote, you're making a prediction about the future by
selecting the person whom you think will do the best job. Is there
really a way to rationally do this? And if there was, why not do
away with elections and simply use that rational method to select
leaders?
Grotius|5.29.07 @ 4:49PM|#
Anyway, once you start to question whether people are equal or not it opens a whole can of bees that some elements of the Enlightenment thought that it had solved.
|5.29.07 @ 4:53PM|#
And if there was, why not do away with elections and simply
use that rational method to select leaders?
That's the point, Dan: There isn't a more rational way to do this,
which is one of the many reasons why government is destined to be
run poorly.
Congratulations, you're almost a libertarian.
|5.29.07 @ 4:53PM|#
But Caplan argues that in the real world, voters make
systematic mistakes about economic policy - and probably other
policy issues too.
Of course,in the real world, voters generally don't make decisions
on policy from the ballot box.
Grotius|5.29.07 @ 4:54PM|#
Indeed, if the vast majority of a polity are fundamentally (or simply generally) irrational when it comes to politics, what does that say about their day to day lives? Or about the relationship between them and those who act rationally in the political realm?
|5.29.07 @ 4:55PM|#
Let's take it back to the days of only property owners (to be modern or post-modern, allow for female property owners)being able to vote.
|5.29.07 @ 4:57PM|#
That's the point, Dan: There isn't a more rational way to do
this, which is one of the many reasons why government is destined
to be run poorly.
But I'd say that some governments are run poorly, some are run
well.
|5.29.07 @ 5:05PM|#
But I'd say that some governments are run poorly, some are
run well.
Only relative to each other.
Compare how governments run with how very large corporations run,
and I think you'll find that, by and large, even GM, Microsoft, and
Walmart are paragons of organizational virtue.
|5.29.07 @ 5:06PM|#
But I'd say that some governments are run poorly, some are
run well.
Name one well-run government.
|5.29.07 @ 5:07PM|#
voters generally don't make decisions on policy from the
ballot box.
Voters make plenty of decisions on policy at the ballot box. There
are 5-10 state constitutional amendments on the ballot every 2
years here in Florida. Thanks to this tyranny of the masses we now
have an amendment on the proper treatment of pregnant pigs. That is
nowhere near as silly as the 2000 amendment requiring light rail
that was removed a scant 4 years later by the same process.
|5.29.07 @ 5:08PM|#
This is why markets are better than democracy. The incentives to act rationally are stronger and people that make irrational decisions become less influential over time. The invisible hand has it all over vox populi
Christopher Monnier|5.29.07 @ 5:12PM|#
> The democracy defenders always elude to totalitarianism
as the only alternative, and seemingly forget that we could always
keep democracy, but relieve people of the burden of making so many
collective choices if we merely limit the power of government. Then
the pressure to choose the right/most-moral/seemingly-best
policymaker to make policies for everyone everywhere wouldn't be
nearly as great.
This is the key point. Making decisions by consensus is a bad way
to make decisions, so we should limit the number of decisions that
are made by consensus. As an example, imagine if ISPs were suddenly
nationalized in the US, and every four years the American public
had to choose which bundle of technology to embrace for the next
four years...the Internet would fall apart almost instantly!
|5.29.07 @ 5:22PM|#
Rationality is often in the mind of the beholder. A "rational" health care policy is rather different for a person who is young and healthy as opposed to a chronically ill senior. By the same token, the ability to shed long term workers easily from their jobs may be beneficial to the corporate bottom line but is usually advocated by tenured academics or CEOs with fat severance provisions in their own contracts.
lunchstealer|5.29.07 @ 5:22PM|#
But I'd say that some governments are run poorly, some are
run well.
They do make the trains run on time!
Drink!
|5.29.07 @ 5:32PM|#
Democracy has one tremendous flaw... there is no proportionality
between voting power, taxation, and benefits.
On one side, 25% of taxpayers with limited voting power contribute
85% total income taxes (Source). However,
being the highest earners, they receive very little in government
benefits.
On the other side, the majority of the population pays less in
taxes than it receives in benefits. As a result, they have every
reason to support even greater government tax-and-spend welfare,
knowing that they'll get the benefits, but won't have to pay for
it. It's amazing how generous voters can be with someone else's
money.
My proposal is to deal with it would be to redesign the voting
franchise.
Yes... every citizen of the age of majority would still get to
vote... (I'd even do away with the whole "citizenship" requirement
and allow all taxpayers to vote) the only difference would be that
each vote would be multiplied by the total amount of taxes paid by
the voter since the last election.
This could most easily be accomplished at the municipal level,
where typically the only taxes are on property, but it could just
as easily be applied to federal and state income taxes. Sales taxes
would be trickier, unless you're really good at keeping
receipts.
The benefit of all this would hopefully be an end to ever-expanding
welfare statism.
Your thoughts?
GILMORE|5.29.07 @ 5:33PM|#
Grotius | May 29, 2007, 4:54pm | #
Indeed, if the vast majority of a polity are fundamentally (or
simply generally) irrational when it comes to politics, what does
that say about their day to day lives? Or about the relationship
between them and those who act rationally in the political
realm?
Good point. Something i've tried to say a number of times on this
board in different contexts. Reason is always a tainted process
that doesnt exist entirely independently from emotion or identity
or tribalism or myth or conformity or lifestage or social status,
etc. For some it does more than others, but it is never
unmixed.
|5.29.07 @ 5:34PM|#
Aren't elections in a free nation just like markets (built on voluntary choice, albeit influenced by advertising), and isn't this market failure? I've been in, terested in how libertarians view this.
GILMORE|5.29.07 @ 5:36PM|#
as an afterthought, I'd add that if people *were* actually
capable of 'pure, untainted rationality', it wouldnt necessarily ge
a good thing, either.
I think neitzche wrote something along these lines but I am too
dumb to remember
|5.29.07 @ 5:37PM|#
As far as Caplan goes, he's onto something. But it's irreleveant. We're not a democracy. We're a republic. The duty of the voter in a republic is to select competent public servants, and then hold them responsible for the results of their policies. Unlike democratic government, in a republic, a complete understanding of policy is neither practical nor necessary. Everyone (especially in the media) seems to think that these two forms of government are synonymous.
|5.29.07 @ 5:40PM|#
Well, I doubt that aristocrats would make policies that are any better. They would make worse policies out of self interest than the public could make out of ignorance. A constitution is the best way to prevent the worse policies. Of course, in a state where the constitution gets ammended every few years, it isn't that effective.
|5.29.07 @ 5:43PM|#
Ken:
"Aren't elections in a free nation just like markets (built on
voluntary choice, albeit influenced by advertising), and isn't this
market failure? I've been in, terested in how libertarians view
this."
Modern democracy is one huge negative externality... you can vote
for whatever benefits you want (pre-kindergarten care, single-payer
universal health, prescription drug benefits, etc...), but someone
else has to bear the costs.
LarryA|5.29.07 @ 5:44PM|#
A majority of the time I hear the "people are voting
irrationally" argument it translates as "they voted against
something I favor."
Last month I had a long discussion with someone that went, "Yes, I
do understand about public financing of elections, and that
checking the little boxes won't raise the amount on my current
1040, but I'm still not checking them because I really truly don't
like public financing of elections and by the way it does
eventually raise taxes."
Never did convince her I was "rational."
|5.29.07 @ 5:47PM|#
Russ R,
I wouldn't mind living in a tricameral system. One house with
representation proportional to taxation, one house with
representation proportional to population, and one house (Senate)
with equal representation to each state and elected by that state's
legislature. Each house would have to pass the same bill before it
became law. Funding bills would start in the tax house. Bills
regarding the courts, crime, and war would start in the population
house. Bills regarding interstate relations or new federal powers
would start in the Senate.
|5.29.07 @ 5:53PM|#
Aren't elections in a free nation just like markets (built
on voluntary choice, albeit influenced by advertising), and isn't
this market failure? I've been in, terested in how libertarians
view this.
No, because in a market, it isn't "Winner Takes All".
If I want to buy Organic Vegan Soy-Free Mayonaise Substitute (and I
am not making this up, such a thing exists) from my local
supermarket (yes, the local big chain supermarket actually carries
the product in its "health food" section), I can do so.
Where as, government would be more like if every 4 years everyone
voted on the one type of Mayo that everyone should be forced to eat
(which would be Miracle Whip, because it is Mayo + Corn Syrup, and
2 out of 3 people prefer Miracle Whip). And even then, it would be
a choice of only two brands of Mayo, the Soy-Free Vegan Mayo
wouldn't even be on the ballot.
thoreau|5.29.07 @ 5:54PM|#
We're not a democracy. We're a republic. The duty of the
voter in a republic is to select competent public servants, and
then hold them responsible for the results of their policies.
Unlike democratic government, in a republic, a complete
understanding of policy is neither practical nor
necessary.
Point taken. However, voters will judge the competence of a public
servant and the results of his policies based on whether or not the
voter likes the policies or thinks that the policies are good
according to whatever the voter's policy preferences might
be.
Which gets us right back to what Caplan is talking about.
The distinctions you draw are important conceptually, but only to
the extent that people recognize those distinctions and apply the
resulting insights when making decisions.
Russ 2000|5.29.07 @ 6:06PM|#
Aren't elections in a free nation just like markets (built
on voluntary choice, albeit influenced by advertising), and isn't
this market failure?
Elections in a democracy are not even fucking close to the way
markets work EXCEPT for the aggregation of irrational actions. A
free market STILL provides some kind of "representation" for those
with esoteric tastes. Elections in the US democracy are
winner-take-all, which is the complete antithesis of markets.
If you buy something you don't like, you can change your mind right
away. With democracy you are fucking stuck with your bad decision
for years. The only opt out capability you have is assassination,
which is rather drastic.
Markets work more like a parliamentary system - the top vote getter
gets the top seat, but the "losers" aren't completely shut out. For
example, if the LP got, say, 5% of the vote in a gubernatorial
election, the more market-like approach would be the LP getting 5%
of the seats in a house of representatives. In a market-like
democracy, there is no fucking way in hell a president with
approval ratings below 33% should retain office for another
minute.
|5.29.07 @ 6:10PM|#
No form of government can guarantee "good leadership" {whatever
that is).
The principal virtue of a democracy is that it allows you to change
the rulers without a war. Ken @ 4:26 comes close to this in his
comment about "voting out", but doesn't quite touch on the point of
avoiding killing one another over who will be on top.
Further, democracies and republics are far more resilient in crisis
than authoritarian states.
GILMORE|5.29.07 @ 6:15PM|#
Tacos mmm | May 29, 2007, 5:37pm | #
As far as Caplan goes, he's onto something. But it's irreleveant.
We're not a democracy. We're a republic. The duty of the voter in a
republic is to select competent public servants, and then hold them
responsible for the results of their policies. Unlike democratic
government, in a republic, a complete understanding of policy is
neither practical nor necessary.
Well put.
the founders understood that voters are capricious and self
destructive. Caplan thinks its a shock.
some good stuff regarding Founders disdain for 'democracy'
http://users.law.capital.edu/dmayer/blog/blogIndex.asp?entry=20050606.asp
e.g.
Virginia's Edmund Randolph, a member of the 1787 Convention,
reminded his fellow delegates that their mission was "to provide a
cure for the evils under which the United States labored," namely
"the turbulence and trials of democracy." Samuel Adams championed
the new federal Constitution in his own state, Massachusetts,
because it was not democratic: "Democracy never lasts long. It soon
wastes, exhausts and murders itself," he noted, echoing the
classical model's theory, "There was never a democracy that did not
commit suicide." Alexander Hamilton, in a June 1788 speech urging
his fellow New Yorkers to ratify the Constitution, declared: "It
has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable
would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no
position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which
the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature
of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure
deformity." And James Madison, writing in perhaps his most famous
Federalist essay, No. 10, noted that "democracies have ever been
found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of
property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they
are violent in their deaths.
Grotius|5.29.07 @ 6:22PM|#
Gilmore,
The founders generally differentiated between "democracy" and
popular government. As I noted above, an expanded franchise was
part of the ratification process (at least in many states).
GILMORE|5.29.07 @ 6:25PM|#
We're not a democracy....
thoreau | May 29, 2007, 5:54pm | #
Point taken. However, voters will judge the competence of a public
servant and the results of his policies based on whether or not the
voter likes the policies or thinks that the policies are good
according to whatever the voter's policy preferences might
be.
yes, but you're talking about voters judging the competency of a
public servant as an incumbant, because the only way people develop
opinions about right or wrong policy is in their effect. When it
comes to new unproven candidates, they vote with their
emoticon-tribalism computer that has little to do with rational
thinking.
thousands will vote for fred thompson because he looks the most
like a president they once saw on TV.
I think caplan may have a point, but if any, it's something common
sense and obvious being translated into smarmy science-ese
|5.29.07 @ 6:27PM|#
Russ, jtuf-
Interesting ideas. I've pondered the idea of some sort of
vote-weighting matrix system, i.e., where one's vote is weighted
based on say both income and education level.
|5.29.07 @ 6:27PM|#
Interesting responses. I too think a great thing about markets
is that they protect little minority niches. A fella can get rich
selling classical music cds, even if they are only 3% of the music
buying market.
On the other hand, I can think of some markets where you only have
two or three choices. Where I live you have only two cinema chains
(Regal, Carmike). I like pro wrestling and it's a virtual monopoly
(there is simply the WWE, but I catch TNA on Spike). I can think of
a few others...
Another way that markets strike me as different was kind of
mentioned (or I only kind of understood them) by those who
mentioned the externalities and such. In elections the winning
choice can then force things on others. This is not typical of
markets, except that when a product gets a "vote" it does induce
producers to make more of it and less of what you may want. This
can get to the point where the "market has spoken" and no producer
is willing to make what you want.
I've still yet to hear much about what this means for the
"advertising is harmless" riff I hear about in Reason all the time.
It's clearly the advertising that causes (or beter to say
'channels') a great deal of the irrationality in voters. If it does
the same things to markets it could be disrupting the overall
utility of markets (of course, that is not the only reason to favor
markets, the protection of minority niches such as above are in my
opinion a great effect of markets)
|5.29.07 @ 6:29PM|#
I wanted to add that Taco's mmm statement was very interesting. I remember Woodrow Wilson had this vision of government, that accountability should be at arms length, little micromanaging and more holding the ultimate 'decider' responsible at spaced out intervals.
GILMORE|5.29.07 @ 6:31PM|#
Grotius | May 29, 2007, 6:22pm | #
Gilmore,
The founders generally differentiated between "democracy" and
popular government. As I noted above, an expanded franchise was
part of the ratification process (at least in many
states
Sure, and I saw your comment. But their awareness of the suicidal,
bone-headed stupidity of voters is still noteworthy. Yes, the US
constitution may have been the *most* democratic, revolutionary
document of its time, but it's kind of an easy win in context. I
think 90% of the world had kings at the time. But they had no
inherent love of athenian pure democracy, and understood the
dangers of too much popular control.
|5.29.07 @ 6:36PM|#
Thoreu:
Point taken. However, voters will judge the competence of a
public servant and the results of his policies based on whether or
not the voter likes the policies or thinks that the policies are
good according to whatever the voter's policy preferences might
be.
It wasn't either of these things that got Bush elected in 2000.
Policy-wise, the man was a blank slate. He just had a presidential
name. And it has been the results of his policies that caused the
electorial massacre of his party last year. Politicians rarely
outline more than their political priorities during campaign - "I
will help the poor, fight global warming" or "I will fight the
terrorists, secure our oil supply," etc. Few people in the voting
public are equipped to understand the particulars of how any of
these things will be done, and almost no one (Hit and Run included)
knows simultaneously how to deal with such complicated issues as
Iraq, healthcare, immigration, the US policy towards China... these
things are so complex that in themselves, they need panels of
experts. What the voter expects of a candidate is to 1) have the
"right" priorities 2) deliver results based on those
priorities.
|5.29.07 @ 6:39PM|#
It may well be that voters aren't rational, or, at the very
least, include both irrational and rational motives when deciding
who to vote for, but that may only be true on a prospective basis.
Throw the bums out is a perfectly rational rule, assuming
that those in office are, indeed, bums. Political scientists even
have jargon for this. It's called retrospective voting. Of
course, the divil ye know may be better than the one that ye don't,
but I'm sure we can all leaf through our history books and find
examples of pols who either screwed up royally or happened to be in
office when the country went through bad times, and got tossed out
on their ears.
Consider some examples:
Truman couldn't bring the Korean War to a successful conclusion.
His party let him know that it wasn't going to renominate him, and
the electorate chose someone who played a huge part in winning the
last war, Eisenhower.
Johnson had a similarly tough time over Viet Nam, and also chose
not to run in 1968. Humphrey came within an eyelash of catching
Nixon, but add in the Wallace vote and the "agins" beat the
incumbent party handily.
Jimmy Carter lived and died by this voter tendency. Gerald Ford was
punished for what Nixon did, and for the general state of the
country in the stagflation 70s. Carter was in turn slapped down in
1980 for failing to solve the problems of inflation and
unemployment. Reagan just topped 50%, but Carter only got
41%.
The Republicans, getting credit for an improved economy, won two
Presidencies as the incumbent party. But when things turned a bit
sour in the early 90s, George H.W. Bush couldn't hold their
coalition together, and did even worse than Carter (37.4%.)
Then there are those instances of one or both houses of Congress
flipping, especially at mid-term, which can signal dissatisfaction
with the results of current policies. We'd probably see more of
this if it weren't for the Incumbent Protection Acts -
gerrymandered safe seats and campaign finance reform (sic.)
Does anyone who has read Caplan's book know how he deals with the
theories of political scientists such as V.O. Key or Morris P.
Fiorina?
Kevin
|5.29.07 @ 6:41PM|#
Big Al Tocqueville said it best: "Give power to the majority,
they'll oppress the minority; give power to the minority, they'll
oppress the majority."
Trouble is, people keep forgetting to read the first half of that
statement.
That, in a nutshell, sums up the problem. So...is there anyone here
who thinks the Electoral College is a bad idea?
GILMORE|5.29.07 @ 6:46PM|#
.Ken | May 29, 2007, 6:27pm | #
It's clearly the advertising that causes (or beter to say
'channels') a great deal of the irrationality in voters.
Chicken or the egg?
could it be just that advertising effectively exploits pre-existing
irrationality? It seems a little strange to suggest Ads "make
people irrational". They help people make decisions by pulling the
strings of their irrationality. "ooh, he has kids! and he likes
God!" No one asks about monetary policy.
GILMORE|5.29.07 @ 6:47PM|#
So...is there anyone here who thinks the Electoral College
is a bad idea?
not me. I just wish their football team were better.
|5.29.07 @ 6:55PM|#
Aren't elections in a free nation just like markets (built
on voluntary choice, albeit influenced by advertising), and isn't
this market failure? I've been interested in how libertarians view
this.
Ken,
The break down between voting and rational market behavior is most
easily understood if you give your daughter your platinum
Mastercard.
Her market behavior will be totally different from when she is
spending her own money.
Voters (quite understandably) know they are spending other peoples
money.
|5.29.07 @ 6:59PM|#
This argument is one half-step away from traditional political arguments. "Why don't they behave rationally" will then instantly devolve into a debate over what is the "rational" correct vote. Isn't that the same issue faced by the book "What's the matter with Kansas"? It asks the question of why people in Kansas would continue to vote against their own interests (meaning, continue to vote Republican). The question itself assumes that voting for Democrats is the correct choice. What poses as some sort of meta-argument is really just the same old arguments dressed up in a tweed jacket with suede elbow patches. And perhaps smoking a pipe as well.
|5.29.07 @ 7:28PM|#
Big Al Tocqueville said it best: "Give power to the
majority, they'll oppress the minority; give power to the minority,
they'll oppress the majority."
Trouble is, people keep forgetting to read the first half of that
statement.
That, in a nutshell, sums up the problem. So...is there anyone here
who thinks the Electoral College is a bad idea?
Actually, the Libertarian solution is to give neither power... or
at least strictly limit the power, and therefore the oppressiveness
of either side.
GILMORE|5.29.07 @ 7:39PM|#
What poses as some sort of meta-argument is really just the
same old arguments dressed up in a tweed jacket with suede elbow
patches. And perhaps smoking a pipe as well.
indeed! Here here. (puf, puf) I must concur, sir. Jeeves! a
brandy.
ahem.
Yeah, I agree. I said something similar earlier, but less artfully.
It's sort of ironic that we accept rhetoric dressed up a
science...making a point that people are irrational :)
Dr. Leiderhosen, your patients are waiting.
|5.29.07 @ 7:58PM|#
"Isn't that the same issue faced by the book "What's the matter
with Kansas"? It asks the question of why people in Kansas would
continue to vote against their own interests (meaning, continue to
vote Republican). The question itself assumes that voting for
Democrats is the correct choice. What poses as some sort of
meta-argument is really just the same old arguments dressed up in a
tweed jacket with suede elbow patches. And perhaps smoking a pipe
as well."
Not exactly the same argument.
People, because of what they share in the way they process
information, exhibit inherent, and systematic reasoning errors,
from a strictly rationalist stand point.
Human cognition is not inherently rational, but does have some
systematic tendencies that will show up in aggregated behaviors
like markets and voting.
So you can expect systematic biases in the way voters vote that
have nothing to do with rationality.
Here
http://duncanpierce.org/node/53
Is a list of some common biases that can be expected to
systematically skew voters behavior away from either rational or
random voting...
Advertisers have learned a lot about how to exploit these
systematic biases, and their techniques are very much a part of how
politicians sell themselves and how companies sell their
products.
Luckily, the system is somewhat self-correcting by having check and
balances, and term-limits, and the like.
Single Issue Voter|5.29.07 @ 8:08PM|#
Dan T,
"This sounds like a bunch of elitist crap. "
Hey your clock must be stopped! You are right.
I'm no fan of "the tyranny of the majority" but I trust my fellow
Americans a lot more than any bureaucrats or "experts".
|5.29.07 @ 9:09PM|#
Several people have made this point already (most recently Rex
Rhino), but nevertheless several other people continue to be very
good at missing the point. Therefore I would like to restate it
thusly:
(Specific theoretical examples are used to make this more pungent
and hopefully more noticeable.
Our options are not limited to the following:
1) Vote for the Republicans, and let the Republicans make laws that
tell us who we can fuck. (Probably not a good choice.)
2) Vote for the Democrats, and let the Democrats make laws that
tell us who we can fuck. (Probably the better choice, if those are
our choices.)
3) Do not trust the voters to vote correctly, and instead install
an educated aristocracy or benevolent dictatorship or some other
kind of elitist arrrangement to wisely tell us who we can
fuck.
There is, instead, a 4th option:
4) Have a government with sufficiently restricted power that, no
matter what faction the voters put into power, nobody has the
authority to tell anybody who to fuck.
We don't have to argue about what is the "rational, correct vote"
for the whole country if we leave matters up to individuals to
decide themselves, to the maximum degree possible.
|5.29.07 @ 9:54PM|#
I don't remember the priest telling me when I went to Confession when I was a kid, "Well, Lance, it was wrong of you to disobey your mom and talk back to her like that, but since you set the table every night and do your homework and sent your aunt a birthday card, what the heck! You're a good kid. Your sins are forgiven automatically. No need for you to do any penance."糖尿病 心脑血管 文秘 糖尿病 糖尿病症状
GILMORE|5.29.07 @ 10:21PM|#
Stevo Darkly | May 29, 2007, 9:09pm | #
...nevertheless several other people continue to be very good at
missing the point
possibly.
But other people have also been talking about a different angle
altogether than your 1-4 option thing
I think the topic was more interesting because of the question
about 'irrational reasoning'. Not who to vote for, or anything
about why less-government is rational or not.
I think it is. I feel it is. I may be wrong but for all i know it
may be right (cue guitar line)
Most people probably vote for the haircuts that appeal most to
them.
I'm voting for Obama in the primary because hilary and rudy both
have too much experience. i hope they one day both get real jobs.
Plus, I want to be a white man living in a black man's world.
|5.29.07 @ 10:32PM|#
This is a thoughtful discussion. I wish more threads were as
high-quality. Keep up the good work...
Lost in Paradise
|5.29.07 @ 10:36PM|#
i couldnt read the whole thread just yet, but id like to add that a good defintion of irrationality would be supporting a policy x because you think it has effect y when in fact (you can convincingly demonstrate) it really has effect z.
Grotius|5.30.07 @ 12:03AM|#
Stevo Darkly,
4) Have a government with sufficiently restricted power that,
no matter what faction the voters put into power, nobody has the
authority to tell anybody who to fuck.
Of course one has to convince people that is appropriate so that
they adopt it and follow through with it after adoption. So one is
back to square one.
One wonders, can one have a demoratically created libertarian
government?
|5.30.07 @ 12:50AM|#
For those folks who think that most voters are largely rational,
let me disabuse you of that notion. I ran for office. I met with
thousands of voters. Some of the more awe-inspiring moments on the
campaign trail:
1) A voter in a rusted-out Datsun telling me she "always votes for
whoever has the most yard signs up."
2) An lady in her late 90s who was quite proud of having always
voted in every election for roughly 8 decades, and having marked
her ballot for a Democrat in every single race (including a dead
person, Patsy Mink)
3) Many, many people who told me they just voted for whoever was
endorsed by the labor unions (who all endorsed the dead person,
BTW).
4) Many people who asked just one question, and said they based
their decision on that one answer (usually "are you against gay
marriage?")
5) One person, who had an open door when I went up to his house,
slamming his door and deadbolting it as soon as he saw what party
label I had chosen
6) People with multiple yard signs of politicians with totally
opposite political philosophies, but all of the same
ethnicity
7) People who didn't know who their elected officials were, who
proudly bragged that they never missed a chance to vote.
8) People with my opponent's yard sign up, saying they liked me and
would vote for me, and also for that nice fellow whose sign was in
their yard
9) A person who had my yard sign up, who called me up, furious at
one position of dozens in my campaign mailer, and saying she would
not vote for me even though she totally agreed with everything else
in my brochure, and even though she had no idea where my opponent
stood on that issue or any other
10) Did the mention the dead person thing?
AMERICAN: WITH A VENGEANCE|5.30.07 @ 1:15AM|#
Leif | May 29, 2007, 10:36pm | #
i couldnt read the whole thread just yet, but id like to add that a
good defintion of irrationality would be supporting a policy x
because you think it has effect y when in fact (you can
convincingly demonstrate) it really has effect z.
WHO LETS SWEDES COMMENT ON ANYTHING AMERICAN>!? LEFTISTS
Fluffy|5.30.07 @ 6:55AM|#
Russ -
Your idea about voting according to taxation has already been
tried, after a fashion.
In the Roman Republic, the votes for officeholders was taken "by
the centuries", a complicated voting system which boiled down to
class-based voting where the votes of the wealthy counted more and
usually determined the issue on their own before the poor even
voted.
This didn't work out that well in the end, since the effectively
disenfranchised minority sought other outlets to express its
political will, first through a parallel system of government where
a popular assembly declared its own laws directly, and when that
was neutered, by supporting demagogues who sought to undermine the
system and eventually [via Caesar] toppled the Republic
entirely.
One man, one vote isn't necessarily about finding the best
governing system, the best policies, or even the best
representatives. It's also about a basic human drive to not be
subordinate. If you devise a governing system that tells people
their vote is worth less because of their social class, all you
will end up doing is embittering the majority against your system.
You may get the "right" electoral outcomes a couple of times, but
eventually someone will come along to express the wills that have
been frustrated. If you're unlucky, that person will be a Lenin -
and then you'll be treated to some really irrational
outcomes. We're much better off devising a system that requires
immense supermajorities for fundamental change [like the
Constitutional system] but which nominally gives each person an
equal vote.
|5.30.07 @ 9:08AM|#
Name one well-run government.
I think the US government is pretty well-run.
After all, it's successfully created the leading civilization in
the world.
|5.30.07 @ 9:12AM|#
Only relative to each other.
This is like saying that the Indianapolis Colts are only a good
football team compared to other football teams.
Compare how governments run with how very large corporations run,
and I think you'll find that, by and large, even GM, Microsoft, and
Walmart are paragons of organizational virtue.
I don't know how you can make that comparison as a business and a
government have very different goals. Wal-mart is great when you
need light bulbs but I'm not sure I'd trust them to govern a large
country.
|5.30.07 @ 9:56AM|#
My wife's thesis is on how people respond to their political
system. Part of the reason that Americans are poorly-educated about
their government is...they're supposed to be!
Basically, PR systems provide more incentive to be informed than
Single Member Districts. And being rich provides more incentive to
be informed than being poor. And a bunch of other things, but those
are the two strongest causations. And, given that the US is rich
and SMD, it is, not surprisingly, near the top end of the SMD
range. But we are less informed, generally, than most PR nations.
Because we have less incentive to learn.
Neat stuff. Smart one, Mrs. Damar...
|5.30.07 @ 10:52AM|#
After all, it's successfully created the leading
civilization in the world.
And there we have the pathology of statism encapsulated in one
sentence. Nothing good happens unless the state does it; everything
good that happens must have been done by the state.
God forbid that the vast majority of civilization-building that was
done in the USA by non-state actors be given any recognition at
all.
|5.30.07 @ 11:38AM|#
Mrs. Damar is smart. Where I live it is theoretically possible
to elect a representative who is not a candidate of the Democratic
party, but that has never happened in the over 30 years I have
lived within the city limits. Our municipal and county elections
are officially non-partisan, and we don't have voter registration
by party, so perhaps there have been some secret Republicans
elected from time to time. Our current county executive was a
Republican state legislator, but he ran up his winning margin in
the suburbs, and only got the chance to run when a long-term
incumbent was ousted in a recall election made necessary by a
financial scandal. Our state's senior Senator, a Democrat, is an
entrenched millionaire incumbent, while the junior Senator, of the
same party, could conceivably be defeated, but is also becoming an
institution.
Urban politics being as they are, my Democratic state senator is
sometimes accused by the local lefty activists of being a
crypto-Republican, while my county supervisor shows up at the
annual picnic of the Socialist party.
All of this is to say that, except for statewide elections, my
interest in politics is essentially academic, which I suppose is
somehow fitting. I do have an undergraduate degree in political
science, and, given the fact that since I earned it I haven't been
employed in a position that required that specific training, my
interest in politics could essentially be considered a hobby.* I'd
expect that to be true for many politically aware people who live
in uncompetitive constituencies, if they are not part of the local
majority. There's also the perverse effect that the combination of
registration by party, closed primaries and partisan elections has.
People who are sympathetic to the stated goals of a particular
minority party often register as members of the dominant party so
that they can participate in the only elections that matter, the
dominant party's primaries.
No matter how ineffective my interest in politics may be, I don't
think it is any more nonsensical than rooting for my favorite
sports teams. Arguably, if I make a good a point about the local
nine's pitching rotation, the manager is unlikely to be paying
attention. If I want to make trenchant political comments to one of
my representatives they might take heed, especially if they are
unaware of how unlikely it is that I would ever vote for
them.
Kevin
* I have run for office as a Libertarian candidate, which could be
considered putting my degree to work. It was sorta like someone who
has just earned an undergraduate degree in business administration
applying for a top spot at a large firm that is certain to go to
someone with a more impressive resume. Best case, I influenced the
debate in those campaigns a bit, or the relative positioning of the
various candidates.
|5.30.07 @ 12:12PM|#
And there we have the pathology of statism encapsulated in
one sentence. Nothing good happens unless the state does it;
everything good that happens must have been done by the
state.
That's quite an exaggeration of what I'm saying. The state is
simply the institution that we've put together to provide a
framework that allows our society to florish.
God forbid that the vast majority of civilization-building that was
done in the USA by non-state actors be given any recognition at
all.
In that case, shouldn't the government be given credit for helping
and allowing those actors to do their thing? And remember, the
state was created by non-state actors...
|5.30.07 @ 12:22PM|#
The situation is even worse than this. Voters generally do not
vote directly for policies; they vote for candidates for office who
enact legislation.
Voters are generally ignorant of the political stands of candidates
for office, even on the issues they consider most important; for
example, most voters think that Hillary Clinton has opposed the
Iraq War from the outset, despite the fact that she voted for
it.
Legislators are generally ignorant of the legislation they are
considering; few actually read the bills they vote on. That is how
the PATRIOT renewal bill managed to include a section giving Bush
the power to appoint federal prosecutors outside the normal
process.
Legislators almost never follow up on the effects of previously
passed legislation, whether the results are good, bad, or
indifferent, and almost never investigate how the laws are being
administered.
|5.31.07 @ 2:59PM|#
"Irrational" government practices do not imply either an
undemocratic system or irrational voters. Our system is broken
because it contains lots of "incentive traps" -- situations akin to
the Tragedy of the Commons, where individuals, each acting
perfectly rationally, caused a disaster.
I would like to see a scholarly effort (to be followed, if
successful, by a constitutional convention) to redesign the system
to get rid of these traps. I would expect it to make two major
kinds of changes:
(1) Remove powers that create potential for harm. One example:
prohibit the federal government from doling out funds to state and
local governments on condition that they follow Congress' bidding
on matters where the federal government has no jurisdiction of its
own. Another example: replace the federal government's general
power to regulate interstate commerce with a narrower power that
lets them prohibit violent and property crimes that cross state
lines, but doesn't let them impose licensing schemes on entire
industries.
(2) Change at least one house of Congress to a
proportional-representation scheme such as STV, so that no member
represents a specific geographic district smaller than the entire
US (and thus, no member can "bring home pork").
Andrew|6.8.07 @ 8:29PM|#
There are two problems with democracy:
1. Leaders
2. One person one vote
This new form of government gets rid of those two obstacles to true
democracy and solves pretty much every criticism I see in the
comments on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_governance
http://www.metagovernment.org
Sure, the concept isn't perfect, but it is far better than any
other. Including representative democracy, democratic republics,
etc.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245