Why voters typically make bad decisions in elections

[ShakeZula06]

As past discussions have pointed out in the past, since one vote barely matters (barely is generous, it's just a smigen higher then meaningless) there's not only not a rational reason to vote (on an individual level) but also not a rational reason to actually investigate which person it's worth voting for.

In all practicality, you will never see a negative consequence from who you decide to vote for on election day. So if your not like us and instead like most and couldn't care less about politics, what reason do you have to actually investigate what's the right position on any certain issue or race?

Although I haven't seen any study I think it's common sense that what party you support or what side you take on issues is directly related first to your family, friends, and community. In that sense it's the same as religion. If you grow up in the bible belt, chances are you'll be a christian. If you grow up in the middle east, chances are you'll be a muslim. Whatever your parents religion chances are that's what you'll be. Same goes with politics.

Incredibly low voter turn out and apathy when it comes to politics also comes into play with this. Most people don't care about politics. They make a rational decision not to care. Why? Well besides the fact that their vote won't make a difference, they are basically free riding off the people that do care. And unfortunately a large amount of voters that do care don't actually investigate the issues because it's not rational to do so because again, their vote isn't likely to make a difference so they will never actually be punished for their decision. It's much better to simply feel good by being swept up by a few feel good quotes or bumper sticker quotes then actually look for the truth in an issue.

Of course, there is a minority of people that both care about investigating which platform is best and do vote. The smart minority of consumers can drive a market (and do on a daily basis) but in a winner take all competition where you can't even win (without first taking it to congress) unless you have a majority (of electoral votes of course) of votes, who do you think a canidate will try to appeal to, the smart minority or the masses who don't really investigate the issues (and are rational for not doing so)?

Large scale democracy is a classic Tragedy of the commons.

Also, for anyone wondering why I said "The smart minority of consumers can drive a market" here's an old post of mine, parts of this also reinterate other parts of this post-
-----
In only takes a minority of smart consumers to drive a market. Take TVs for instance. How many people actually know much about TVs? Most people go to the store and just pick out something that looks alright and that they can purchase. They don't spend time researching the specs of each company or each model they're considering. Many may see this as not making a good decision at all.

However TVs keep getting better in every spec, not to mention becoming cheaper. Why? Because even if just 10% of TV buyers actually make informed decisions, that represents a big chunk of consumers relative to the average market share.

Also, as Brainwalter points out, people tend make much smarter and more informed decisions when their ass is on the line, rather then having the problem spread out a little to every body.

In government to have power you need a majority. So people campaign to the dumbest and most easily manipulated 50.1% (that actually vote) to gain power.