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.