May 27, 2007
Do voters have any idea what they are doing?
Gary J. Bass in the New York Times Magazine:
...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? In his provocative new book, “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies,” 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.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 11:47 AM | Permalink























Comments
Lincoln summed it up when he said: "...but you can't fool all of the people all of the time!" Democracy is at its strongest as a fault correction mechanism, as a way of getting rid of a bad government rather than as a foolproof method of electing a good one. Almost any SOB can get himself elected if he has charm, plenty of cash, a good TV commercial producer and the promise of a better Health system, but if what this post calls the "ignorant" voters decide to chuck him out the next time around, there's not too much he can do about it.
Although commentators and politicians often bewail negative voting, it is precisely the negative votes, from a people that is fed-up of being fooled, that shatter the best-made plans of the a government or administration and show democracy at its most effective.
Posted by: aguy109 | May 27, 2007 6:52:51 PM
Almost any SOB can get himself elected if he has charm, plenty of cash, a good TV commercial producer and the promise of a better Health system, but if what this post calls the "ignorant" voters decide to chuck him out the next time around, there's not too much he can do about it.
Except that the ousted SOB just replaced an earlier SOB, and the will simply be replaced by a new SOB. The idea isn't to avoid just some particular SOBs, but SOBs in general.
If democracy were a good "fault correction mechanism", then prevalence of SOBs among electoral candidates would be contained, if not minimized. Doesn't seem to be the case.
Posted by: Gyan | May 28, 2007 12:52:35 AM
Gyan, you are right, democracy is not a very good fault correction mechanism, but it is probably the best available. What other sanction do we have on our politicians, other than the threat of ousting them? If your thinking about G W Bush, he's not an SOB, we wish he was but he doesn't deserve that title, he's just very stupid.
Posted by: aguy109 | May 28, 2007 7:08:34 AM
I would actually sooner say that GW is an SOB than stupid, actually. He may not be very intellectual, but I think there's a lot of cunning behind the scenes there.
Posted by: Marion | May 28, 2007 2:12:32 PM
Post a comment