It's only a matter of time before I start seeing the election talk and posts. It will be somewhat less energetic this year since this isn't a presidential year, but I expect more of the same, so I'm getting this in before you all have the chance to get full-on eyes glazed, mouth frothed, and rabid for your side.
This won't be a hand holding, feel good post. I will be insulting anyone who might be unfortunate enough to click and read. I don't really want my friends list to plummet, however, so how to proceed? With a compliment, of course. You can insult people as long as you dish compliments first, right? I sure hope so, because this isn't one of those "delete me if you don't like it" posts. I hate those.
I am very proud of my fiends list. It's not the biggest, but it consists of a wide range of good, thoughtful, and diverse persons. That's the compliment. They have no shortage of opposing views. Some choose Democrat or Republican. Some are third party. Some don't care as long as you get out there and vote. After reading The Myth of the Rational Voter (if I've ever been even mildly annoying in debate before, I'll be completely insufferable now) I have come to believe that we have bad policies not because of Republicans or Democrats in power, or because of conservatives or liberals in power. I don't even believe that if the libertarian party, the party that I tend to agree with most often, took over most of government, that we would necessarily see much improvement in policy. The reason, and brace yourselves because here it comes, is that no one, not even the brilliant people I associate with, are qualified to vote. Add that to the problem that candidates are not qualified to occupy the positions for which they're competing, and we're left with a system that surprisingly works as well as it does. The voters aren't qualified to decide, and the candidates aren't qualified to lead.
I know there are some seriously knowledgeable folks publishing things in my feed. That doesn't make one qualified to vote, though. I imagine some are puffing themselves up in righteous indignation because they research the candidates, and their voting histories, and their party beliefs, and they listen to both sides of the issues, and they can name their senators and their congressman and the justices and half the President's cabinet. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because no one person can know enough about policy to be truly informed on how those policies will turn out. We're told that we have to stand up for something or we'll fall for anything, and we put our faith in the idea that good ideas/people will ring true for at least 51% of the voters, and that it all comes out in the wash. "See you at the polls" is what people really mean when they agree to disagree even if what's being voted on is whether or not to infringe on human rights. We think, just because democracy is the best system we've tried, that it cleans our consciences when government makes bad decisions. We tell ourselves that it's not our fault because we voted for the other guy. We think that winning or losing a vote entitles that person to make decisions on our behalf.
Almost no one takes economics classes, but people think they're qualified to vote for someone, who may or may not know anything about economics either, that will vote on or even create economic policy. Oh, so you took Econ 101, did you? Ok, (slow clap for you), but what about urban development, genetics (GMO anyone?), social justice, criminal justice, anti-terrorism, religion, military strategy, medicine, or education? There's no shortage of subjects that government involves itself in and no shortage of subjects we know very little about.
Let's say you're formulating your counter argument that the uninformed people on each side of a debate will cancel each other out, and the people that do know what's best will carry the vote in spite of all of the ignorance that abounds. You would be right that this does happen to a degree, but that doesn't matter because not only are voters ignorant, but they're also irrational. We think foreigners are out to get us, but expect them not to assume we're out to get them, too. We think that the money we spend on things we don't care about are astronomical sums even when they pale in comparison to the programs that make up the lion's share of government spending. We can be provided all of the facts, but we still vote against facts when provided with fear motivation. And politicians know it.
Politicians have no incentive to formulate good policy. Zero. Voters don't know good policy from bad so why bother to try when you can get reelected by making voters feel good (or afraid they'll feel bad), and not by making good policy? And why don't voters try to learn? It's because the reward is too low to make it worth it. You can spend your whole life dedicating yourself to becoming knowledgeable in every subject that might come up, but your vote will still only count one in 300 million. One thing you can count on humans to do is respond to incentives, and there is almost no incentive at all to become knowledgeable in politics when the reward is the same as the reward given to the person that hasn't done any of his homework. You both get the same vote that won't decide a damn thing unless it just happens to be 50 million to 50 million and yours is the deciding vote. Not only this, but there isn't much of a punishment for bad election results or bad policies, either. Let's say a guy gets elected, and he pushes through a bad policy that wastes a billion dollars per year. Who cares? It only costs that mistaken voter 3 dollars per year for their failure to get the vote right. They get to distribute the penalty among all of the population, even the ones that abstained from voting. The system does not reward voters for learning about policy, and it does not punish them for failing to learn policy, so it is no surprise so very few people bother. Since voters don't have the slightest idea if their elected leaders are creating and supporting good policy, and since voters don't vote based on good policy even when they do know, politicians don't have to factor good policy into their decision making. They only need to manage the emotions of the voters.
All that being said, vote if you like. Every person is entitled to have his interests represented (in as much as politicians actually represent anyone's interest other than their own interest in reelection). I know someone who just votes against the incumbent because she figures
since nothing ever gets better then none of them ever deserve a second term. Just stop guilting people who abstain as if they're not fulfilling their civic duty, and stop discounting people's opinions if they don't vote. Also, get a realistic expectation of what government is capable. We're all desperate for change, but when policy comes from ignorance and fear, the changes aren't likely to be positive changes.
The moral of the story is that if you want more ignorant and irrational rules governing your life, ask your democratic government for some policy on that.
No comments:
Post a Comment