Rationality, Decision-Making, and Democracy

Kama

With the Lisbon Treaty, but not limited to it, I note a recurrent theme of claims that people were voting 'illogically' and 'irrationally', which tbqfh I tend to translate as basically 'voting wrong'.
The justifications are various: information deficit or misinformation, people voting 'emotionally', or on the basis of faith in politicians, the need for qualifications on the franchise, and so forth.

I find these attitudes and arguments abhorrent. Warts and all, expressed preference through a voting procedure is our current democratic system. Casting aspersions on the basis on which people make that decision has already missed the point, which is that they decided. Those who wish to criticise the foundation of that decision cannot access the actuality of why a decision was made, which makes their accusations conveniently hard to repudiate, but also impossible to prove. I'll offer a few arguments against these position, and what I consider their unwarranted assumptions for a 'pure' and 'legitimate' vote.


Rationality Is Mine, Peasants!

I think there's a privileging of a heavily idealised concept of rationality, and generally carries with it an assumption that the selfsame is unquestionably possessed by the speaker. I find this an untenably elitist position, and pretty fundamentally undemocratic, even before the likely self-deception involved. Simply put, 'Me rational, You emotional!'

This position seems weak to me, both in its assumption of a clear seperation between the two, and the less justified leap of faith to presuming the privilege of the rational position to oneself, which screams projection.
There's a wealth of information in neuroscience and cognitive science that should inoculate against this. Damasio in Descartes Error provided evidence that emotions are integral to decisionmaking. To even choose clothes from a wardrobe requires an emotional component; how much more so politics, when the decisions are strongly value-based? An emotionless politics would be a mere 'administration of things', rather than an expression of societal hopes and desires, as some might hope it to be.

Even accepting in principle a seperation, the role of cognitive biases, such as Confirmation Bias should prompt a quick double-take at one's initial assumptions, and how they tend to validate themselves. Seek and ye shall find, and all that...

Filling the Information Deficit, All by Myself...

There's an assumption that if people were given the 'right information' they would make the 'right choice'. My argument is that determining this 'correct' information is always-already a political decision, and heavily contested.

Some seem to think its simpler than that; 'Just read the Treaty'.
Btw I applaud anyone who made it through the entirety of the Lisbon Treaty, in consolidated or unconsolidated form. I didn't, I gave up at the point I felt I'd need legal qualifaction to understand what it actually meant, and how it could possibly be legally interpreted.
This meant that, like many others, I was reliant on the interpretation of others as to its implications, with all their likely biases or possible misinterpretation (as opposed to just my own ^_^). Similarly, I often regard others as often having a better understanding than me of issues involved, especially if they are people whose analysis I trust, and view as better positioned or qualified to interpret for me. Trust and faith in an interpreter appears an adaptive strategy to areas where your own competence may not be sufficient.

I voted the way Daddy would have wanted: Against Fianna Fail!

Another frequent grounds for finding someones choice illegitimate is that they voted on trust and faith, or its absence, whether in a party or a politician. Apparently, this then makes them Mindless Muppets, or Sheeple, or whatever the disparaging insult de jour is.

Apologies all, but I don't see a problem with this.
A plank of representative democracy is delegating decisionmaking to someone else, since you regard tham as representing you and your interests, and to some extent trust them to protect your interests.
Conversely, if you regard the political class as being acting against your interests in general, it seems hardly irrational to vote Up when they call for a Down vote; past performance may be no guarantee of a future return, but may be more reliable than ignoring history.

Coda:

None of the above is meant to imply that rational argument, critical thinking, and research aren't valuable: they are vitally necessary to the health and existence of the demos. An opinion with reasoned backing is no longer 'mere opinion'. Nor is it meant to justify those who deliberately misinterpret and mislead for propagandistic reasons.

Its meant as a 'Yeah? And? So? What?' to anyone who thinks their vote 'better' than anothers; the great claim of democracy has been its theoretical egality. Claiming a cloak of righteous rationality in support of denigrating the participants in the democratic process, flawed as both it, and we, may be, aligns one with a retrograde movement against democracy, and I for one am against it.

oscarBravo

I'll restate a point I made on the EU forum: democracy means, simplistically, rule by the people. Being given the right to rule confers upon the ruler an obligation to rule wisely.

If a monarch made decisions on a whim or capriciously, he would rightly be castigated as a despot, and if the voters in a democracy cast their ballots equally capriciously, they should be castigated equally.

bus77

The thing is. This was a national issue, not just an internal one. There is a difference in the minds of everybody.

I'll try and explain why. When I use the word 'National' I'm talking about a nation of people in relations with other groups. This is automatically treated as being ''more serious'' than an internal one.

Imagine a tribe of Indians and another tribe is in their vicinity. They do a little trade with them, hear stories about the times they went to war. Even intermarry.

But one day a change is proposed.

Now, like I said, the people are on general good terms with the people of the other tribe, but they are still the other tribe.
This change could affect loads of different things the people have an interest in. You could compile a long list. Or it could affect none at all. But, nevertheless, the people all agree that it should be treated seriously.
People want it played tactically.

This is where you have the problem. Say the chiefs are having a meeting and in walks the tribal eejit and says ''Well, I just like the faces of the other tribe'' Or a lady walks in, scatches her head and says ''Hang on, I'll ask my husband'' and walks back out again(Could just as easily be a man, I'm not sexist).

The point is the resounding chorus from those involved and who take the decision serious would be ''Your undermining our tribes future!''

So technically those that say mass democracy is undermining the process, or more to the point, undermining the tactical nature of this are correct.

There was a politician who made a move to get it addressed higher up by a presidential commission(I should really find out his name, he was a good guy). But it got shouted down for various reasons, and I understand the reasons why. But if I was king for a day it would have been made happen.

This is why I won't be paying any more attention to this whole mess.

O'Morris

oscarBravo wrote: »

If a monarch made decisions on a whim or capriciously, he would rightly be castigated as a despot, and if the voters in a democracy cast their ballots equally capriciously, they should be castigated equally.

I agree. Anyone who votes capriciously should be castigated.

SkepticOne

oscarBravo wrote: »

If a monarch made decisions on a whim or capriciously, he would rightly be castigated as a despot, and if the voters in a democracy cast their ballots equally capriciously, they should be castigated equally.

I think the difference here is that in the democracy you have a vote. You have the same power as the capricious voter. Under the absolute monarch you don't. Of course you are entitled to be critical (well I think so) if you wish in both situations are not really equivalent, imo, and the comparison doesn't really work. You may even be arrested for sedition in an absolute monarchy so you may not even have the right to be critical here.

oscarBravo

Of course the analogy breaks if it's stretched too far; that's the problem with analogies. The point remains: the right to rule carries a burden of responsibility. Where rule is absolute, the burden is immense. Where ruling is restricted to the casting of a ballot, the burden is commensurately less, but still non-zero: you owe it to your fellow citizens to vote intelligently.

SkepticOne

oscarBravo wrote: »

Of course the analogy breaks if it's stretched too far; that's the problem with analogies. The point remains: the right to rule carries a burden of responsibility. Where rule is absolute, the burden is immense. Where ruling is restricted to the casting of a ballot, the burden is commensurately less, but still non-zero: you owe it to your fellow citizens to vote intelligently.

I don't believe there is any such obligation. When you vote you represent only yourself therefore your obligation is only towards yourself. Other voters get to look after their own intersts. When you vote, I don't require you to have regard to my interests since I also have a vote.

I think you will find that if you insist people justify why they voted in a particular way in an election you will get a generally hostile reaction.

oscarBravo

SkepticOne wrote: »

I don't believe there is any such obligation. When you vote you represent only yourself therefore your obligation is only towards yourself. Other voters get to look after their own intersts. When you vote, I don't require you to have regard to my interests since I also have a vote.

I couldn't possibly disagree with you more.

When you vote you represent only your opinion, but the consequences of your vote are borne by everyone. Take the divorce referendum: if someone voted against allowing divorce to be introduced, they are not saying that they want to retain a constitutional ban on divorce for themselves, they're saying they want to retain a constitutional ban on divorce for everyone.

It's similar to the fact that, as a company director, I have a duty of care to my company which requires that I act in its best interest even if such action is not in my own personal best interest. As a voter, I have a duty of care to the entire demos.

I think you will find that if you insist people justify why they voted in a particular way in an election you will get a generally hostile reaction.

I don't insist that they justify themselves - that's incompatible with a secret ballot.

I do ask that they have the maturity to make an informed decision.

SkepticOne

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's similar to the fact that, as a company director, I have a duty of care to my company which requires that I act in its best interest even if such action is not in my own personal best interest. As a voter, I have a duty of care to the entire demos. I don't insist that they justify themselves - that's incompatible with a secret ballot.

I do ask that they have the maturity to make an informed decision.

OK so what do you propose? Are we simply talking about your right to comment on what you perceive to be lack of maturity in certain segments
of the electorate or do you propose practical remedies?

oscarBravo

Keeping in mind that this is a theory forum, I'm not necessarily advocating a course of action. I'm directly challenging the (apparently fairly widely-held) view that it's perfectly acceptable to cast a vote in a democracy for frivolous or even stupid reasons, that how and why my fellow citizens vote is none of my concern, despite the fact that I share the consequences of their votes, and that suggesting that people actually vote intelligently is tantamount to fascism.

SkepticOne

oscarBravo wrote: »

Keeping in mind that this is a theory forum, I'm not necessarily advocating a course of action. I'm directly challenging the (apparently fairly widely-held) view that it's perfectly acceptable to cast a vote in a democracy for frivolous or even stupid reasons, that how and why my fellow citizens vote is none of my concern, despite the fact that I share the consequences of their votes, and that suggesting that people actually vote intelligently is tantamount to fascism.

It is a valid criticism of a theory that it does not work in practice. The reason a political theory or ideology is important and discussed is because, ultimately, it has practical consequences. If someone has a complaint, e.g., people voting for irrational reasons, then we want to know what should be done. If it proves the case that nothing can or should be done about it then it might be the case that we simply have to put up with it. Not everything in life is going to be the way you want it etc.

brianthebard

Rationality is relative. If one voter is socialist leaning, and the other conservative, then even though both may have perfectly good arguments in favour of their believes they will be unlikely to convince the other that they voted rationally and with the best interests of the country at heart.

DadaKopf

In the views of those who subscribe to the theory, 2 people can act 'rationally' but do so on the basis of different information. In economic theory, this an explanation given as to why markets often fail - due to 'imperfect information'.

But this is idealism at its zenith.

I prefer to think of people having 'reasons' - that someone's reason to vote is a mix of things, broadly divided between rationality and sentiment. It's how we're physiologically wired.

Pokes a real hole in ideal normative democratic theory.

oscarBravo

SkepticOne wrote: »

It is a valid criticism of a theory that it does not work in practice. The reason a political theory or ideology is important and discussed is because, ultimately, it has practical consequences. If someone has a complaint, e.g., people voting for irrational reasons, then we want to know what should be done. If it proves the case that nothing can or should be done about it then it might be the case that we simply have to put up with it. Not everything in life is going to be the way you want it etc.

To my mind it's similar to, say, bemoaning the quality of Irish driving. There isn't a single thing that can be done to improve it, but by and large it's pretty pants. Acknowledging that a problem exists is the first step to fixing it. Many people seem to believe that voting frivolously isn't a problem - equally, several years ago, drink-driving wasn't seen as a problem. I live in hope.

brianthebard wrote: »

Rationality is relative. If one voter is socialist leaning, and the other conservative, then even though both may have perfectly good arguments in favour of their believes they will be unlikely to convince the other that they voted rationally and with the best interests of the country at heart.

For me, in the context of this discussion, it doesn't matter what or whom you vote for; merely that you give rational thought to your vote. What you believe is in the country's best interest is almost certainly different to what I believe, but that's democracy in action: we both get an input into making the country the way we believe it should be.

The way the word democracy has been kicked around lately, it has become a by-word for laziness, ignorance and selfishness. Sure, people will vote for whatever they think best suits their individual needs and desires - but is that democracy?

oscarBravo

DadaKopf wrote: »

I prefer to think of people having 'reasons' - that someone's reason to vote is a mix of things, broadly divided between rationality and sentiment. It's how we're physiologically wired.

I don't believe it's a lot to ask that people make a conscious effort to favour reason over sentiment when making an important decision such as how their country should be run.

Sure, people suck at decision making. But people can learn to make better decisions - it's a skill, like any other.

SkepticOne

oscarBravo wrote: »

To my mind it's similar to, say, bemoaning the quality of Irish driving. There isn't a single thing that can be done to improve it, but by and large it's pretty pants. Acknowledging that a problem exists is the first step to fixing it. Many people seem to believe that voting frivolously isn't a problem - equally, several years ago, drink-driving wasn't seen as a problem. I live in hope.

But there were efforts made by the authorities to clamp down on drunk driving. I can't see a possible equivalent means of improving voting reasoning standards without compromising principles like universal suffrage or secret ballots. Obviously we would all like people vote based reason but we can't require it of them as you suggest. Ultimately it is up to voters to vote as they see fit.

Where I do think there is a responsibility is when not everyone has a vote. Then those with a vote should look after the interests of those without a vote in addition to their own interests. An example of this would be parliamentary voting.

Thirdfox

It's interesting to see that the flaws in our current style of democracy are being examined by many people... Maybe some will find that no solution exists but certainly I hope that out of this closer examination people can find a better method (whatever it may be).

I don't ask people to make the "right" choice (as no such thing exists), but an "informed" choice, as in not voting due to the colour of someone's tie (unless it happens to be relevant to the political situation).

Whatever happens I think it's good that people are interested in seeking to improve what we have.

oscarBravo

SkepticOne wrote: »

But there were efforts made by the authorities to clamp down on drunk driving.

Those efforts alone are insufficient. What's required is a sea-change in attitudes. More so than increased breath-testing and patrols, the scorn you receive from your neighbour if you admit to drink-driving is what is driving the reduction in its incidence.

I can't see a possible equivalent means of improving voting reasoning standards without compromising principles like universal suffrage or secret ballots.

Education is the key. Just as it played a crucial part in the shifting of attitudes on drink-driving, it's probably the only thing that will help in this case.

Obviously we would all like people vote based reason but we can't require it of them as you suggest.

Not legally, no; but morally, yes.

Where I do think there is a responsibility is when not everyone has a vote. Then those with a vote should look after the interests of those without a vote in addition to their own interests. An example of this would be parliamentary voting.

Another example would be voting on issues that affect the rights of children. To those who would support the right of people to vote on whatever whim takes their fancy, I would put the question: would it be OK to vote against the rights of children on the grounds that you don't have any?

auerillo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Education is the key. Just as it played a crucial part in the shifting of attitudes on drink-driving, it's probably the only thing that will help in this case.

I agree that education is the key, although how one goes about that is the hard part. History is littered with examples of ways in which individuals or populations were educated, (or in some cases "re-educated") into being more responsible citizens. The difficulty is who decided what that means, and what form the education takes.

I think, in a democracy, we have to accept that some will vote because they like the colour of a politicians hair or for similarly frivolous reasons. Others will not vote at all.

With the example of drunk driving, it is reasonably easy to educate individuals with a carrot and a stick. Trying to educate individuals, or populations on making more informed choices in elections seems more difficult.

Perhaps the only real way to achieve this is through better and better education in general.

oscarBravo

auerillo wrote: »

I agree that education is the key, although how one goes about that is the hard part. History is littered with examples of ways in which individuals or populations were educated, (or in some cases "re-educated") into being more responsible citizens. The difficulty is who decided what that means, and what form the education takes.

The first step is to reclaim the word "democracy", and to help people understand that it doesn't mean "I have a vote and I can do what the hell I want with it". Reality TV and "talent" shows have gotten people used to the idea that they are entitled to a say, but people don't seem to understand that with rights come responsibilities.

I think, in a democracy, we have to accept that some will vote because they like the colour of a politicians hair or for similarly frivolous reasons. Others will not vote at all.

No, we don't need to accept that, anymore than we need to accept drink driving. The fact that it still happens doesn't make it acceptable.

With the example of drunk driving, it is reasonably easy to educate individuals with a carrot and a stick. Trying to educate individuals, or populations on making more informed choices in elections seems more difficult.

It doesn't need to be. It shouldn't be hard to tell people that the right to vote carries with it a duty of care to their fellow citizens.

SkepticOne

oscarBravo wrote: »

The first step is to reclaim the word "democracy", and to help people understand that it doesn't mean "I have a vote and I can do what the hell I want with it". Reality TV and "talent" shows have gotten people used to the idea that they are entitled to a say, but people don't seem to understand that with rights come responsibilities.

The thing is, if you have a vote you are entitled to do with it as you want. You may disagree with this but the fact remains. In fact, society deliberately looks the other way as you cast your vote to ensure that it is indeed your free choice.

I agree that with every right comes responsibility but the right in question here is the right to vote without being accountable or having to qualify or justify that vote in any way.

oscarBravo

SkepticOne wrote: »

The thing is, if you have a vote you are entitled to do with it as you want.

I'm genuinely puzzled as to why you think the right to vote - one of the hardest-won rights there is, in many cases - carries with it no responsibilities or duties.

You may disagree with this but the fact remains. In fact, society deliberately looks the other way as you cast your vote to ensure that it is indeed your free choice.

You seem to imply that secrecy voids the responsibility to make a reasoned and intelligent choice. Does this mean that if Josef Fritzl had never been caught, he wouldn't have done anything wrong?

There can be no sanctions for making an uninformed, or indeed a stupid choice in a free and fair election. But that in no way alleviates the moral responsibility to cast an informed ballot.

I agree that with every right comes responsibility but the right in question here is the right to vote without being accountable or having to qualify or justify that vote in any way.

And the concomitant responsibility is...?

SkepticOne

oscarBravo wrote: »

And the concomitant responsibility is...?

The responsibility is this: once we have collectively cast our vote, we agree to be bound by the consequences of the results of the ballot. For example, if the people elect Fianna Fail we agree to be governed by them for the duration of their term even if individually we did not vote for them. We don't refuse to obey laws passed by them because we feel that those who voted for them voted for the wrong reasons or capriciously or whatever.

oscarBravo

Let's suppose we have two civics teachers in a school. One spends time explaining carefully the nature and history of democracy, the history of civil rights movements, the mechanisms of government and so on. The other just tells the pupils to just go ahead and vote whatever way they want, because it doesn't matter: it's not like anyone's going to find out.

Would you consider both these approaches equally valid?

SkepticOne

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's suppose we have two civics teachers in a school. One spends time explaining carefully the nature and history of democracy, the history of civil rights movements, the mechanisms of government and so on. The other just tells the pupils to just go ahead and vote whatever way they want, because it doesn't matter: it's not like anyone's going to find out.

I would tell them that they are entitled to vote as they wish. They need not justify their vote to anyone. They are free if they wish to toss a coin and vote accordingly.

However, I will point out they will be bound by the results. Therefore it is in their interests to consider carefully how they vote.

Note that I am not saying they have a responsibility or duty vote in a certain way.

Additional point: I am doing both things here: What I am describing is the nature of democracy. It is result of a long historical process. There is no reason why this could should not also be explained in a civics class.

oscarBravo

SkepticOne wrote: »

I would tell them that they are entitled to vote as they wish. They need not justify their vote to anyone. They are free if they wish to toss a coin and vote accordingly.

They are also free to drink themselves into an early grave, once they turn 18. The fact that you are free to do something doesn't make it a good idea.

However, I will point out they will be bound by the results. Therefore it is in their interests to consider carefully how they vote.

I would point out that everyoneis bound by the results, and therefore it is in everyone's interests that they consider carefully how they vote.

Note that I am not saying they have a responsibility or duty vote in a certain way.

Nor have I, nor would I. There's a difference between asking that people make an informed and rational choice, and asking them to make a particular choice.

SkepticOne

oscarBravo wrote: »

They are also free to drink themselves into an early grave, once they turn 18.The fact that you are free to do something doesn't make it a good idea.

Nor did I say it was.

I would point out that everyoneis bound by the results, and therefore it is in everyone's interests that they consider carefully how they vote.

This is correct. When I say it is in their interest, I do not mean only those in the class but people generally.

Nor have I, nor would I. There's a difference between asking that people make an informed and rational choice, and asking them to make a particular choice.

There is, but when I mean vote in a certain way I mean both. Society does not require them to make an informed or rational choice, but it does require that they abide by the result. This is the responsibility which arises from the right to vote.

oscarBravo

SkepticOne wrote: »

Society does not require them to make an informed or rational choice, but it does require that they abide by the result. This is the responsibility which arises from the right to vote.

Would you agree that there is a greater benefit to society from informed and rational voting than from whimsical and/or ignorant voting?

Time Magazine

Previously I had just found it amusing to read a book that quotes William Lecky on its first page while in the William Lecky library. But Caplan became a hell of a lot more appealing to me last month.

oscarBravo

Nice link - I've just ordered a copy of that book.

SkepticOne

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would you agree that there is a greater benefit to society from informed and rational voting than from whimsical and/or ignorant voting?

Sure, but without specific policies it is just hand wringing.

It would be nice if there was less crime for example, but the challenge is to come up with policies that reduce crime without impinging unnecessarily on other rights.

Kama

Reading through some of the linked Caplan, notice he proposed giving college graduates more votes (just like our Seanad!) since they hold 'more informed' views, or legislation being struck down if it was 'uneconomic'. I'd query whether the philosopher-kings of that Queen of the Disciplines, economics, are as unified in opinion as Caplan represents them as being, and whether this transfer of power for a more efficient, economical democracy is a Good Thing. I know a variety of flavours of economists, with a variety of presuppositions and policy prescriptions, often with a lot of unconfessed normatives...

To take one example only, protectionism at certain stages of development can be highly beneficial to an economy. The rise of the Asian tiger economies relied heavily on an infant industry/protectionist policies, as has China's development. Context matters, something that is often lost in the more economistic analyses.

The public has largely ceded control of monetary policy to professional economists; perhaps the public would be willing to defer to expert judgment on some other areas as well.

Am currently in the States, and the conservatives here call that 'Administrative Tyranny', translating the concept of a tyranny of the minority to the managerial elite. Let me think...

Appropriation of democratic power by expert groups due to ignorant voters? Um...Group A thinks they know better than the pubic how to run a country, because they think they 'know better' how it should be run, due to their 'superior rationality'? Pardon my irrational scepticism...Would this be better if Group A was the military, the church, men, or taxi-drivers? Many people, for many reasons, consider their views superior, and often have extensive justification for their positions...
(Yes, experts can have intellectual superiority in areas. No, they shouldn't have suprademocratic powers)

In a similar vein, although the majority is unlikely to approve plural votes for college graduates, it does allow the well-educated to exert extra influence by virtue of their higher turnout rate. It might be politically possible to further increase the de facto influence of educated voters by spending less money to increase turnout.

Or in other words, by making it public policy to decrease the proportion of the non-propertied, less-educated who vote? Rise the price of voting? Enforce education of 'correct' economic thought.....Perhaps making it more difficult for The Rabble to be able to, especialy if they disagree on the policy prescriptions of a generally-neoclassical economic elite? Better do it on the sly, and indirectly, mate. Oh, wait...

Reducing democratic participation, due to the 'irrationality' of the public reminds me of the Vietnam-era 'Crisis of Democracy', and the policy position that "[t]he effective operation of a democratic political system usually requires some measure of apathy and noninvolvement on the part of some individuals and groups." (Report on the Governability of Democracies, 1979) Reword that for economic policy, and it seems close to Caplan. There is a long history of elites considering that their positions are more rational than that of the Mob, and the progressive development of democracy has generally moved in the opposite direction, thankfully.

I agree fully that a more educated electorate is a Good Thing; however its demonstrably difficult to come to a determinate judgement as to what constitutes correct information and education; on political questions, these are often essentially contested. Attempting to depoliticise them by removing them to an economic or technocratic-managerial arena is a partial solution, but the cure may be worse than the disease.

The thing about philosopher-kings, in all their variants, is we love em when they think the same as us...when they don't, they become tyrants. Funny thing that.

(Which is probably a variant on Russells 'I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig-headed fool. )

oscarBravo

Kama wrote: »

Appropriation of democratic power by expert groups due to ignorant voters? Um...Group A thinks they know better than the pubic how to run a country, because they think they 'know better' how it should be run, due to their 'superior rationality'? Pardon my irrational scepticism...Would this be better if Group A was the military, the church, men, or taxi-drivers? Many people, for many reasons, consider their views superior, and often have extensive justification for their positions...
(Yes, experts can have intellectual superiority in areas. No, they shouldn't have suprademocratic powers)

I'm reading that Caplan book at the moment - I'll reserve judgement until I'm finished, but it's noteworthy that he doesn't just blithely state that certain expert groups know better, and leave it at that: he provides quite a lot of interesting empirical evidence to support his position.

I'm not sure I necessarily buy the idea of transferring disproportionate power to expert groups, but it's hard to argue with the idea that an uninformed electorate tends to lead to sub-optimal public policies.

Kama

I don't have the book available to me, so I was working off the available essay, which makes me suspect there may have been an element of sensationalist shock value stuff going on, in careerist mode. That and there will always be a demand for books saying people are dumb and we know better. His policy proposals looked pretty damn creepy to me, very much in the cunning repression side of elite theory.

I won't argue that people can't make sub-optimal choices, but being free to be wrong beats the opposite position, don't you think?

oscarBravo

Kama wrote: »

I won't argue that people can't make sub-optimal choices, but being free to be wrong beats the opposite position, don't you think?

And being right beats both hands-down. I may not agree with his conclusions, but it's hard to argue with his findings.

I've never understood the vehement defence of ignorant decision-making, especially when those decisions impact others. Sure, you have the right to do stupid things, but don't you have a responsibility to try to do smart things when other people's welfare is at stake?

Kama

Well, my argument wasn't aiming to laud ignorance. My initial point was that determining what is 'right' on an issue isn't always easily reduced to a scientifically determinable, noncontested datum-answer. My utility function may differ from yours, your optimum distribution may not be mine. There are costs and benefits in determining these by expert group, as there are for determining them democratically.

I admit bias, in that the impression I received is that there is a premise of public irrationality coupled with a premise of superior economic rationality* leading to a conclusion of the superiority of economics as a system of supra-political control, or 'Markets Smart, Democracy Dumb'. I don't agree with this position, and would vote against it.
Interestingly, under Caplan's ideal scenario, I and others should be discouraged from doing so, as my preference is deemed 'irrational'. The move from being responsible to make what we, by our various lights, consider smart choices, to one where 'we' (a libertarian-paternalist minority) should discourage those we consider 'dumb' from making 'stupid' choices seems <insert Godwins Law-incurring rhetoric here>. His data, or rather his interpretation of data within his theoretical frame, may support this, but there are plenty of other views, and research programs, which think otherwise. Now, if only there was a fair and equitable way to aggregate a variety of peoples opinions? Oh, wait...

Now, maybe his position is more nuanced than his article gives it credit, or maybe I'm being deliberately obtuse in interpretation, and reacting to the illiberal stream in political economy I'm (perhaps unfairly) viewing this as within the genealogy of. As said, haven't read it in full, I'm interested in what his evidence is. I cede the point that public choice can be suboptimal, but strongly disagree with the conclusion, that a more efficient economic system of choice is innately superior, as I view this as having certain implicit costs that outweigh the benefits in my opinion. In Caplan's terms, my position would be described as 'democratic fundamentalism', which seems as weak a rhetorical move as if I say he is a 'market fundamentalist'; explains nothing, just a slag of a position.

I'm not against using market or betting systems for information aggregation btw.
An interesting approach in this area (market superiority at information aggregation): 'Vote on Values, Bet on Beliefs'.

But hearing Cato-institute economists talk about discouraging 'less educated' voters, and how variations in public policy stem from some (more socialist) countries having lower 'levels of rationality' as their social choices do not accrod with neoclassical assumptions of what is best for people, to me, seems like a level of disciplinary arrogance coupled with an antidemocratic agenda.

Time Magazine

Caplan is an anarchic nut, no doubt about it. I read his stuff in the same sort of way you might read Orwell. It provides interesting insights that force you to accept frailties in your system, but I wouldn't think anything either suggest could really improve the situation.

What was that Churchill said about democracy again?

o Diablo o

"Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. One hopes it is the same half."
Gore Vidal

I would start by saying that I agree largely with what oscarBravo has been saying. It is an unfortunate truth in a democracy that people will toss their vote away frivolously. This isnt to say that they didn't vote the 'right' way, but that the way that they came to their decision was irrational.

People can look at a set of facts, and because of their social background, their principles, their wealth or any of the reasons that seperate people, they will draw different conclusions. The point is that they look at the facts and make an informed decision. Past this point, any attempt to diminish or denounce the value of their vote is in my view elitist and undemocratic.

If a man is generally more interested in the goings on of big brother and popular culture generally than the way the country is being run, then I for one am ok with him not getting off his fat arse on election day. I do however, find the view that ' uneducated ' or 'irrational' citizens should be denied the vote abhorrent.

I would suggest that the way forward is a principle that abstention is acceptable if you feel you dont have a great knowledge of the issues. That is, a personal decison as to whether or not you should vote rather than an imposed one. I strongly disagree with the idea that a 'toss a coin' approach to voting is aceptable and like oscarBravo, I think a similar approach to drink driving could be succesfull. That is, a change in social attitude to the point where it is no longer acceptable to vote in an irresponsible or frivolous manner.

Obviously, the abstension of large numbers of the voting public wouldnt be an ideal scenario and political education in schools is a worthwhile idea. The bottom line though is that if someone really doesn't have a clue about the issues then they shouldn't vote. It would be a kind of 'democratic fundementalism' to say that everyone should vote simply because they have the right to, although I am of course not suggesting that this right should be taken away.

Kama

While we might regard their ill-thought out positions as just that, I don't know of many people who turn out to vote purely for the lulz.

Accepting the abstention proposal, and taking something like Lisbon as example, I would only vote if I was a legal-constitutional scholar, so I wouldn't. However, those with irrational crazy biases would vote Yea or Nay anyway, regardless of the social acceptability, while the thoughtful types might recuse themselves from voting. Which makes me think of the opening scene of the film Idiocracy.

Taken to its logical limit, only those with expert knowledge on the issue to be voted on should vote on it, all others should abstain.
Which brings us back to rule by expert group.

It'd be an interesting turnaround though, going from haranguing folks to vote, to haranguing them not to.

SkepticOne

Kama wrote: »

But hearing Cato-institute economists talk about discouraging 'less educated' voters, and how variations in public policy stem from some (more socialist) countries having lower 'levels of rationality' as their social choices do not accrod with neoclassical assumptions of what is best for people, to me, seems like a level of disciplinary arrogance coupled with an antidemocratic agenda.

Similar to went on in the Soviet Union where the ruling party was so convinced of its correctness that those who disagreed must therefore be irrational to the extent of requiring hospitalisation in some cases.

The benefit of universal sufferage is that the common person, who has no interest in whatever is the dominant ideology of the time, must be persuaded that a particular course of action is in his interest.

This can be frustrating at times for those (like the Communist Party in Soviet era Russia) who think they know better. Why should someone who has never studied the works of Marx & Engles have a say in how the country is run?

I think this same frustration is being felt by some people on this thread. If only there was a way that we could get what we want without having to persuade the Big Brother-watching unwashed.

o Diablo o

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think this same frustration is being felt by some people on this thread. If only there was a way that we could get what we want without having to persuade the Big Brother-watching unwashed.

Actually I'll admit that does apply to me to an extent. I hold that the general populus' distaste for socialism is in part due to the lack of fair assesment from the bourgeois media, that is to say their ignorance of the facts.

SkepticOne

o Diablo o wrote: »

Actually I'll admit that does apply to me to an extent. I hold that the general populus' distaste for socialism is in part due to the lack of fair assesment from the bourgeois media, that is to say their ignorance of the facts.

It is interesting that Caplan's complaint is that the ordinary punter like you votes for socialism out of ignorance. If they were truly enlightened (like he is) they would be in favour of free-markets.

It is not so nice when you are the ignorant one.

o Diablo o

I dont share the view of an elitist group superceding ordinary democracy, in any way shape or form. Also, ordinary people seem to be in favour of free markets, globalisation and the furthering of the neo-liberal agenda, not socialism.

When I say ignorance, It might be more accurate to refer to misinformation. The public consciousness is unquestionably infuenced by mass media which is owned and influenced by big capitalists who, naturally, are opposed to socialism.

oscarBravo

SkepticOne, I'd appreciate if you could step away from the preconception that voters are merely being perceived as ignorant because they voted differently to how I (or others) would have voted.

In the context of this discussion, an ignorant voter is one who is self-confessed thus (as per the results of the post-Lisbon survey), or demonstrably thus (per the examples given by Caplan of the percentages of the US population ignorant of basic facts about their democracy).

Kama

I hold that the general populus' distaste for socialism is in part due to the lack of fair assesment from the bourgeois media, that is to say their ignorance of the facts.

There's a long tradition in Marxist theory of ideology on this, under the name of False Consciousness, which is to my mind as abhorrent on a moral level as the traditions further right such as Caplan, where the publics appetite for socialism is due to their ignorance, see his comment on how the French have 'lower lvels of rationality' as evident by their choice of a more socialist system. I'm not on side with either of these, I think they lead to shady and illiberal places and are fundamentally disrespectful of humanity.

Oscar's point I think (please correct me if misrepresenting) is distinct from this; not a disagreement on destination as per values and choice, but that, by analogy, they want to go to say, Galway, but are choosing to drive to Donegal due to having an incorrect map. The issue isn't that people want to go to different places due to their various tastes, but that they are basing their attempted direction on the wrong information.

SkepticOne

oscarBravo wrote: »

In the context of this discussion, an ignorant voter is one who is self-confessed thus (as per the results of the post-Lisbon survey), or demonstrably thus (per the examples given by Caplan of the percentages of the US population ignorant of basic facts about their democracy).

I think there is a valid point to be made here with regards to basic incontrovertible facts (though I'm not sure this thread is about that). But what constitutes a fact is often a matter of debate in political discussions. This is the larger point. Opinions are often seen as facts by those holding them.

oscarBravo

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think there is a valid point to be made here with regards to basic incontrovertible facts (though I'm not sure this thread is about that). But what constitutes a fact is often a matter of debate in political discussions. This is the larger point. Opinions are often seen as facts by those holding them.

True, but what's equally true is that some facts are incontrovertible. Caplan points to the low percentage of US voters who know the names of both their senators, the lengths of their terms, their party affiliations - never mind their voting records on key issues. These are not matters of debate, but ignorance of them certainly doesn't paint a picture of an enlightened electorate acting in the best interest of society as a whole.

Kama, your analogy is pretty close, thanks.

Kama

De nada Oscar. Its a much stronger point in relation to Lisbon, in my opinion less so in terms of representative election.

I'd query whether the formal-institutional knowledge Caplan cites is that necessary, and 'disqualifies' voters? US politics a pretty straight bipartisan game, heavily allegiance based, very polarised. Similarly look at our own politics, heavily personality-based and clientelistic, emotive and inherited voting patterns (civil war poitics anyone?) very little difference in the political dish being served, just arguments on how best it would be delivered. With centrist convergence of political parties, allegiance and personality as factors are unsurprisingly > policy differences and any kind of rationalist wet-dream cost-benefit analysis on the part of voters.

Poltical reality looks very different to a rational choice between competing ideologies, and more like the BigBrother model. But I wouldn't place blame for this with voters, it seems a structural trend in politics. Any one has a problem with this situation (I kinda do, for one) has a bigger problem than just voter misinformation.

Scofflaw

Kama wrote: »

De nada Oscar. Its a much stronger point in relation to Lisbon, in my opinion less so in terms of representative election.

I'd query whether the formal-institutional knowledge Caplan cites is that necessary, and 'disqualifies' voters? US politics a pretty straight bipartisan game, heavily allegiance based, very polarised. Similarly look at our own politics, heavily personality-based and clientelistic, emotive and inherited voting patterns (civil war poitics anyone?) very little difference in the political dish being served, just arguments on how best it would be delivered. With centrist convergence of political parties, allegiance and personality as factors are unsurprisingly > policy differences and any kind of rationalist wet-dream cost-benefit analysis on the part of voters.

Poltical reality looks very different to a rational choice between competing ideologies, and more like the BigBrother model. But I wouldn't place blame for this with voters, it seems a structural trend in politics. Any one has a problem with this situation (I kinda do, for one) has a bigger problem than just voter misinformation.

Good points. In Ireland, we largely vote for people and parties rather than policies (it's surprisingly hard work discovering what the parties' policies actually are, come to that).

What is actually in operation is the voter's ability to judge character and motivation, rather than their ability to do rational cost-benefit analyses - and character judgement is a far stronger human trait (even amongst Big Brother watchers) than rational analysis, and more evenly distributed too. Our whole political system is geared towards this kind of judgement.

However, that doesn't help us in referendums, where rational analysis is required, and character judgements largely irrelevant.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dresden8

But where does all this leave us when, in a representative democracy, we are represented by our elected TD's, who don't know what they are voting on, don't know the current position, and are voting along lines that the party whips tell them to vote on?

Who exactly is in control then?

Scofflaw

dresden8 wrote: »

But where does all this leave us when, in a representative democracy, we are represented by our elected TD's, who don't know what they are voting on, don't know the current position, and are voting along lines that the party whips tell them to vote on?

Who exactly is in control then?

The Party Whip system is an excrescence. Parties themselves are a bad idea, but the whip system turns them into a farce.

On the other hand, there's a larger question as well - should politicians lead, or follow?

cordially,
Scofflaw