Rationality, Decision-Making, and Democracy

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

Kama

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?

I think dresdens question merits more attention; besides who should lead or follow, we can ask: who, if anyone, actually is running the show. Descriptively rather than normatively, where is the locus of power and autonomy?

scofflaw wrote:

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

Apropos of party whips and Libertas respectively, the larger question again: who leads the leaders? As dresden asked, who is actually in control? I would argue that neither politicans nor the public are, and the choice between them may be a redundant one, that authority and responsibility are increasingly placed outside, residualising both these classes in their roles as either leaders or followers. Between the poles of leader and follower, we may then find another role: that of Bystander.

The Bystander Effect, of passive noninvolvement or indifference through diffused responsibility; waiting for someone else to make the first move, a crowd will stand by horrific happenings. My first real experience of this was shortly after 2001, being in a Dart and serveral thuggish types doing a racist bully routine on an Arab. Like (I presume) everyone else, I froze like a rabbit and hoped someone else would do something about it. One guy did, to his credit, step in and the racists backed off. But the disowning of responsibility, the desire for someone else to do something about it, with an unwillingness to take a personal stand. The more responsibility is thought to rest elsewhere, the less likely intervention comes; 'Can't somebody else do it?'

Both politicians and public trend imo towards being bystanders, relinquishing authority and responsibility: the people to politicians, or to a quite 'rational' apolitical apathy; the political classes to such culprits/allies as 'market forces', or 'Europe', conveniently cheap buck-passable scapegoats in either case. Again, who exactly is leading is a question worth attention.

Assuming the Law of Spiderman, that 'with Great Power comes Great Responsibility', the obverse may be true...with little responsibility comes little power. What can we, as just one country, do about global environmental issues? Or energy security, or immigration, or control of economic issues, in the face of globalized trends, and in the absence of a global demos? With attenuation of power and influence, and scapegoated responsibility, bystanding becomes increasingly individually rational (and perceived as practically obligate)) but collectively pathological and inimical to political action of any but the most passive and acquiescent kind.