| By TonyC. Anderson - Jul 17th, 2007 at 5:58 pm EDT |
| Also listed in: 2007 Social Capital | Campus Progress Blog |
"Brian has written this book like a master tennis player” says Scott Keeter the Director of Survey Research at the Pew Research Center. In a poor attempt at humor, Keeter then “jokingly” attacks Caplan’s poor selection of website wallpapering. Knee-slapping hilarious, I die! (Oh my God it hurts so bad… where’s the food??.<------ My unedited text that I wrote during this painful discussion.)
Bryan Caplan and the Cato Institute teamed forces to discuss the Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies choose Bad Policies. This manifesto attempts to address the growing trend that “voters are not simply ignorant but irrational, and that this is in fact predicted by economic theory.” Author, Bryan Caplan is an associate professor of economics at George Mason University and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.
<<Fast-Forward 45 minutes into the Q&A section>>
A self-identified “Old Turkey” asks: “How can we get more registered voters to vote and (2) how can we help them be more knowledgeable about the issues that differ between candidates on the local, state and national issue?”
Caplan replies: “…[L]ow voter turnout is a blessing in disguise!” He offers that people that are historically underrepresented should only be agitated under the condition that NOT agitating them will cost more. WTF?! Instantly I astral projected myself to my mental happy place, humming the “Manamana” theme song from the Muppet Show repeatedly until I could bring understanding to my present hell. Did he just say low voter turnout was a good thing? It’s true, these people do exist.
Further he shared that the massive swell of students and young people that turned out in 2004 was simply a “blip.” “2004 provided for an interesting experiment” Keeter adds. Great two cents, doctor.
<<End of Program>>
As I wait, what seemed like years in the long buffet style line, I discovered that lunch translated over to heavily-packed animal flesh sandwiches + chips! So I wait for the next tray. More slaughter sandwiches! “Excuse me, are there any vegan options?” I ask the help. “Not sure let me check” Five minutes past. “Here you are”. A cucumber wrap LOADED with cheese. “I’m sorry, anything without cheese” I begged. “Just pick it off, that’s all we have!” Only at the CATO Institute.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
It’s not just tax policy; look at the immigration debate. The “Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy” in Social Science Quarterly asks respondents whether "too many immigrants" is a major, minor, or non-reason why the economy isn’t doing better. 47% of the public think it is a major reason; 80% of economists think it is not a reason at all. Here, the folks at Cato seem to agree with most progressives. They realize that “specialization and trade enrich Americans and immigrants alike; there is little evidence that immigration noticeably reduces even the wages of low-skilled Americans.” Meanwhile, the average voter thinks a progressive immigration policy (i.e. amnesty, more open borders) is bad for the economy. I don’t think the public’s mistaken position is based solely on ignorance; racism and xenophobia indeed play a large role.
You see irrational behavior in the average voter in non-economic issues too. In foreign policy, for example, there tends to be a "rally round the flag" effect where the public will support a war as soon as it has been declared.
I don’t think Caplan should have his way and get a 5% turnout in every election, but the man has a point. Voters – just like people outside the voting booth – aren’t always the most rational actors. Four years into a war we shouldn’t be in, others might start to see his point.
This argument also reflects the assumption that people always vote in their own rational self-interest and, implicitly, that this is a good thing. This ignores wealthy people who choose the candidate who will very likely cost them more money and might not result in any tangible benefit for them. I like that these people do not vote in their own self-interest, but the other side of the coin is that lower-income people also base their votes on intangible things. That it's unclear precisely what these intangible things are (see controversy over the "values voter" argument, etc.) and how much they are weighed in a vote, underscores the fact that it's difficult to determine what a rational, "correct" vote is.
It makes no sense that smart people actively establish policies that attempt to shut others out of the democratic process—especially the most disenfranchised. “This is my democracy not your democracy!” Am I witnessing toddlers fighting over the red Tonka truck? Oh wait, that’s the proposed modus operandi that Cato was exporting yesterday.
Certainly, voter suppression is nothing new—I get that, but an attempt to find this work justifiable is unsettling. Irrational voting behavior is further generated by the political culture of the right to bastardize complex public polices by transforming it into four-word tag lines. (Go Long, Go Hard; No Child Left Behind, etc) Not only have these folks perfected messaging, but they’ve discovered how to polarize their constituency and opposition, simultaneously! Gay Marriage? Close-the-Borders-because-the- “Bad Guys”-are-coming?
Confusing the electorate while covering up the details of their policies is exactly what Caplan desires—Irrational voters!