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.

[ConstantineX]

Myth of the Rational Voter

One of the best econ books I've read. Basically goes into your hypothesis in depth; because of that tragedy, people vote what makes them feel good in their social circles than they otherwise would if they could vote with money.

I think more important than democracy is the illusion of democracy backed by strong institutions with a revolving oligarchy. I like alot how the US government often lifts prominent public academics and economists for public policy, but dislike how their advice isn't listened to. I think something like the Communist Party with a modern updated Constitution with illusory or obfuscatory democratic votes could really become a pragmatic solution with the benefits of stable democratic rule without the posturing and pandering. I must admit that I hope to see China travel down this path.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]


It also helps to keep the people dumb (state education).

[Vagos]

Good stuff. I think it's real hard to define an "informed" voter because of the increasingly poor job the media is doing covering news. Someone might read their local metro paper daily and watch a couple of hours of CNN each night, but sadly, I'm still not sure this makes them an "informed" voter. The media glosses over most everything and gives people the impression they've digested an issue, when really, they've just been shown the tip of the iceberg.

If one is to consider an "informed" voter to be someone who actively discusses the issues with various people while also doing a decent amount of outside research on their own, I'm afraid the amount of "informed" voters could be an extremely small portion of the voter pool.

[valenzuela]

dumb voters put me on tilt, if youre going to make desitions for everybody else you should at least have the decency to educate yourself and know exactly what you are doing.
I see a lot of talk about how people should vote and not voting is not giving a [censored], etc, etc. However I see absolutely no campaign at all to encourage people to inform themselves when they vote.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
Vote or die

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[lehighguy]

Voters will always be ill informed, that's the whole point of the post.

Perhaps we could at least let them stop making decisions for everybody.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
there's not only not a rational reason to vote (on an individual level)

[/ QUOTE ]

This will remain false no matter how often it's repeated.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there's not only not a rational reason to vote (on an individual level)

[/ QUOTE ]

This will remain false no matter how often it's repeated.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why?