David Bernstein’s post referencing a commenter who greatly overestimates the extent to which the public pays attention to politics reminds me of an interesting comment on political ignorance from Tony Blair’s recently published memoir:
The single hardest thing for a practising politician to understand is that most people, most of the time, don’t give politics a first thought all day long. Or if they do, it is with a sigh…., before going back to worrying about the kids, the parents, the mortgage, the boss, their friends, their weight, their health, sex and rock ‘n’ roll…..
For most normal people, politics is a distant, occasionally irritating fog. Failure to comprehend this is a fatal flaw in most politicians.
Whatever you think of Blair’s overall record (I have very mixed feelings myself), he was certainly a highly successful politician, leading his party from the wilderness to an unprecedented three consecutive electoral victories. Blair’s claim that most “normal people” pay very little attention to politics is backed up by decades of polling data showing that most voters tend to be ignorant about even basic political facts and issues. As I have argued elsewhere, this is rational behavior, given the very low chance that any one vote will make a difference to an electoral outcome. As David notes, the swing voters who determine electoral outcomes are generally also the most ignorant part of the electorate.
I do disagree with Blair’s statement on one point. Most politicians do in fact understand the widespread nature of political ignorance. That’s why they usually talk in simple sound bites, and constantly try to exploit the public’s ignorance for electoral advantage. Of course few of them are willing to comment on public ignorance openly. If they did, it would look like they were putting down the intelligence of voters, even though ignorance isn’t really equivalent to stupidity. Therefore, most politicians work hard to exploit political ignorance even as they pretend to believe that the voters are repositories of profound wisdom. It’s telling that Blair revealed his thoughts on public ignorance only after he left office.
The people who really overestimate public knowledge are not politicians but political pundits. They follow politics closely and are surrounded by others who do the same thing. Unlike politicians, they have little incentive to study public knowledge systematically. As a result, it’s easy for them to assume that the general public is paying attention to the same things as they are. An excellent example of this is the current debate over the reasons for Obama’s plummeting popularity. Republican pundits tend to claim that it’s because he has adopted very liberal policies that most Americans disapprove of. Many Democratic ones blame the administration’s public relations strategy and relentless Republican attacks.
In reality, most voters have very little understanding of the administration’s policies and have not followed them closely (see here and here for examples). Obama’s falling popularity is primarily caused by the continuing poor condition of the economy. As political scientist Larry Sabato points out, Obama’s poll numbers are roughly in line with those of previous presidents who presided over bad economies. The same thing happened to Ronald Reagan in 1981-82, for example, even though the Great Communicator had an excellent public relations strategy and pursued policies that were arguably more in line with public opinion than Obama’s.
Blaming political incumbents for economic doldrums is often incorrect, or at least oversimplified. After all, Obama did not cause the current recession or the associated financial crisis. While I think that many of his policies made things worse rather than better, the economy might well still be in bad shape at this point even under optimal policies. But simplistically attributing whatever happens in the status quo to the incumbent is the kind of reasoning one would expect from an electorate with very little knowledge of policy. Historically, voters have often blamed or rewarded incumbents for conditions they had no real influence over, including such events as trends in the world economy that national leaders cannot control, droughts and shark attacks.
A minority of voters, of course, do follow politics closely because they find it interesting. They, however, tend to have very strong partisan or ideological commitments, and evaluate new evidence in a highly biased way. As a result, we get an electorate where the majority of voters have very low levels of knowledge and the more knowledgeable minority often does a poor job of evaluating what they know.
Arthur Kirkland says:
So long as enough people follow and understand well enough to toss shoes in the direction of wankers, enough people are paying attention.
So far, so good.
September 8, 2010, 11:15 pmIlya Somin says:
So long as enough people follow and understand well enough to toss shoes in the direction of wankers, enough people are paying attention.
Even if tossing a shoe is a rational response to Blair (which I doubt), we’re only talking about a handful of people here. Probably 90% of the electorate is made up of people who didn’t toss shoes at him and would not do so if they had the chance.
September 8, 2010, 11:23 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Who said anything about Blair?
But, now that you mention it . . .
September 8, 2010, 11:31 pmORID says:
Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.
September 8, 2010, 11:37 pmCornellian says:
Historically, voters have often blamed or rewarded incumbents for conditions they had no real influence over, including such events as trends in the world economy that national leaders cannot control, droughts and shark attacks.
Shark attacks?
September 8, 2010, 11:43 pmCornellian says:
Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.
I’m partial to mechanostriders myself.
September 8, 2010, 11:44 pmAllan Walstad says:
Prof. Somin: A good post on why less decision-making and resource allocation should be political.
September 9, 2010, 12:40 amloader says:
I couldn’t agree more with the post.
My grandmother has an IQ of 130. She also voted for Barack Obama because, in her words, “He was better looking”, although I suspect her statement might have been, in part, to avoid an argument with my mother about politics. I considered this a triumph of post-racial America because my grandmother is always seemed possesed of a little passive racism. She once told my aunt (who had married into the family as was of Korean decent) “Arleen, I don’t even think of you as Asiatic anymore” meaning it at a compliment. Anyway, from what I understand, she tends to vote on impressions, impressions of honesty, impressions of competence and impressions of good-lookingness. For all that, she is a wonderful, kind, grandmother, and decently perceptive person about other things.
September 9, 2010, 2:16 amPassing By says:
Here’s another way to read ‘political ignorance’ … Politicians are held accountable for results, no matter what excuses they make (since nobody listens to them whine).
In my view, that’s why representative democracy works.
For example, the upcoming Congressional election will likely hammer the Democrats. Well, the country remains mired in recession (and inconclusive war?) two years after they took over; and there’s not even a clear improving trend. Shouldn’t somebody pay a price for that kind of failure?
September 9, 2010, 4:15 amPositroll says:
@AW
It’s also an argument why more decisionmaking should be localised.
Reminds me of this book I just read:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/159558403X/thevolocons0d-20/
“Geoghegan is most impressed by the German model because it teaches high school grads to participate in workers councils and unions, not just as recipients of top down instructions, but as active participants. In larger companies, the workers have a say in the day-to-day operation of the business through works councils with real power … Workers are also members of unions that bargain for wages at the regional level. In companies with more than 2.000 employees, the board of directors has an equal number of outside directors and workers, a system called co-determination. With all this participation, workers have a direct stake in the business, and a real reason to pay attention to government and business. That means that everyone has a reason to continue their educations into their adult lives. It explains European TV: there are many talking head shows, and the discussions are rational. Newspapers are doing fine, at least compared to ours, and books sales are holding up. Geoghegan notices that you see people reading everywhere, books and thick newspapers, and in the homes of the people he visits he sees lots of books.”
September 9, 2010, 4:26 am( copied from http://firedoglake.com/2010/08/14/fdl-book-salon-welcomes-thomas-geoghegan-were-you-born-on-the-wrong-continent/ )
dearieme says:
“Probably 90% of the electorate is made up of people who didn’t toss shoes at him and would not do so if they had the chance.” Quite right; we’d hang the loathsome wee twat.
September 9, 2010, 5:45 amSally says:
People blame Obama because he said he could fix things and he hasn’t. You can call that ignorance. I call it accountability. Don’t ever promise what you can’t deliver. Because we inattentive boobs out here in taxpayer land? We notice that.
September 9, 2010, 8:19 amJohn Burgess says:
As adequately demonstrated in comments above.
September 9, 2010, 8:24 amStrict says:
Sally, this is what he said on election night:
So he never promised that he would “fix things” in the first 18 months of office. He said that he might not even fix things in the first 4 years. He also said there would be setbacks. Perhaps most importantly, he said that there are things that the government just can’t fix.
If you want to talk about accountability, it’s not very useful to talk about vague promises to “fix things.” Talk about specific promises and specific failures or shortcomings (e.g. after Congress passes a bill, White House will post the final bill and get feedback from the public for 5 days before signing it – this has changed to post drafts of the bill before they are passed and get feedback then; etc.).
September 9, 2010, 8:43 amMartinned says:
My impression is that American politicians are much better at that than even the Brits, much less the continental Europeans. Just count the quotable one-liners in Barroso’s State of the Union (warning: it’s a Word Document) if you don’t believe me. I don’t think there are any, that’s why all the media paraphrased what he said instead of quoting. Like the man said:
(I’m not sure about rational, though Germany really does have very good political talk shows. Elsewhere, they’re mostly long-winded.)
September 9, 2010, 8:51 amSally says:
Strict: “Sally, this is what he said on election night:
So he never promised that he would “fix things” in the first 18 months of office.He said that he might not even fix things in the first 4 years.He also said there would be setbacks.Perhaps most importantly, he said that there are things that the government just can’t fix.If you want to talk about accountability, it’s not very useful to talk about vague promises to “fix things.” Talk about specific promises and specific failures or shortcomings (e.g. after Congress passes a bill, White House will post the final bill and get feedback from the public for 5 days before signing it — this has changed to post drafts of the bill before they are passed and get feedback then; etc.”).
9.6% unemployment. There’s a specific. Specifically something he said he’d do something about, spent billions of dollars to do it and ran around recently blathering about recovery summer. And he’s failed. He promised, he didn’t deliver, he’s being held to account.
And I notice you quote from a speech after he was elected. Let’s look at what he said the night he won the nomination: “I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.”
None of that began he promised has begun or appears to have any hope of beginning ever. He overpromised and he’s underdelivered.
September 9, 2010, 9:10 ambuddyglass says:
This article strikes me as sort of an advertisement against universal suffrage, supposing there were a fair and objective way to select a pool of “non-woefully-ignorant” voters.
September 9, 2010, 9:52 amMartinned says:
That’s a question worth asking, but whenever I’ve asked it in the past I got slammed for it. The reputable source for it is J.S. Mill’s Considerations on Representative Government, where he proposed giving everyone one vote, and giving people with certain (university) diplomas or other traditional qualifiers for census suffrage additional votes.
Personally, I tend to conclude that voter ignorance isn’t much of a problem as long as voters vote for people. Having them vote for issues is a different story, since they can do much more harm that way. (California being the traditional example.) Those who are politically ignorant don’t stand for elections almost by definition, so that – regardless whether the people elect a rich middle-aged white democrat or a rich middle-aged white republican – there will be someone vaguely knowledgeable making the decisions. In short: I’d rather have the country run by the corrupt few than by the ignorant many, given that the former have to accept at least some degree of scrutiny.
September 9, 2010, 10:01 amUrso says:
Holy confirmation bias Batman!
September 9, 2010, 10:38 ambuddyglass says:
Yeah. I can’t imagine it would be a popular view point.
As for practical concerns, I certainly wouldn’t use something like a university diploma as the credential, not least of which because many holders of university diplomas are among the woefully ignorant. Also because it creates an undue financial requirement.
Here are my ideas, such as they are:
1. Prohibit “straight ticket” options.
2. Prohibit display of a candidate’s party affiliation on the ballot.
3. Create a fairly small (but not totally insignificant) poll tax. Say $20.
4. Before casting votes, a voter must take a short quiz. Questions would cover basic civic facts and maybe some stuff related to “current issues”. Questions would have objective, unequivocal answers and would be non-partisan. Voters aren’t told whether they passed or not. The votes of quiz-failers are discarded.
1 and 2 mitigate the influence of extreme partisanship.
3 eliminates those who don’t care enough about the outcome to part with $20.
4 (hopefully) eliminates a good number of the woefully ignorant.
September 9, 2010, 10:48 amPJens says:
Politicians are a reflection of those who voted for them. That is why we are in trouble.
September 9, 2010, 10:53 amUrso says:
Why not skip the middleman and make a rule that only landed white males can vote.
September 9, 2010, 10:56 ambuddyglass says:
Because there exist a multitude of woefully ignorant landed white males, and because there are almost surely more precise ways to exclude ignorant voters.
But hey- thanks for the snark!
September 9, 2010, 11:04 amSteve says:
Accountability is a dead concept after 2004.
September 9, 2010, 11:14 amruralcounsel says:
While at any given moment, the average voter/citizen may not be well versed in the details of political issues, I suspect that most are in listening mode.
They are sponges, soaking up the information as it comes out, gradually reaching conclusions not only about politicians and issues, but on the trustworthiness of the sources of information. They have neither the time nor patience to dedicate to being political, but that isn’t the same as being completely ignorant, and it certainly isn’t the same as being uninvolved. They are passively involved.
I’d rather be at the mercy of those kinds of voters than the “politically savvy” any day of the week.
September 9, 2010, 11:15 amPositroll says:
@Martinned
September 9, 2010, 11:15 amI agree that the TV part is kinda questionable – imO the existence of public broadcasters is more important in this respect …
Urso says:
I apologize. I immediately regretted and tried to edit but the software wouldn’t let me even though I was well within the time limits.
September 9, 2010, 11:16 amMartinned says:
I don’t think that’s it, though I’m happy to live in a country with three (mostly) publicly funded television channels. Our politicians just don’t know how to speak convincingly for a large audience. I’m very interested in politics, but I never watch Dutch political talk shows. Hearing those guys speak just makes me cringe. It sounds as if they don’t have one decent media trainer between them.
September 9, 2010, 11:36 ambuddyglass says:
Thanks for this.
September 9, 2010, 11:40 amMartinned says:
That’s a uniquely American problem. In most other places, the people realised long ago that there are many positive externalities to having a highly educated work force, meaning that university (and other) education tends to be free or almost free.
Anyway – for comparison – the last time the Netherlands had limited suffrage, before the introduction of universal suffrage in 1917, there were five categories of voters:
- Payment of an X amount in taxes
- Having a Y amount of savings
- Having passed certain exams (which, in those days, was probably the early form of high school)
- Receiving a Z amount in wages
- Owning a home
The Constitutional basis for these criteria was a provision that authorised parliament to enact an election act that would give the vote to all male Dutch residents who would display certain legally determined “signs of ability and wealth”.
September 9, 2010, 11:44 amRedman says:
The initial Blair quote is the dream of every politician … that the public is not paying attention to what they are doing.
September 9, 2010, 11:53 amMichael J. Myers says:
I’d say that “political ignorance” is not a bug, it’s a feature. Certainly there are people commenting above who believe that the results of the 2008 Presidential election could only be explained by concluding that 50% or more of the American electorate were brain dead. There’s an equal number of commenters who would offer the same explanation for the results of the 2004 Presidential election.
American elections are usually won or lost by finding some way to persuade that shifting group of independent voters in the middle that a candidate makes at least some sort of sense. Obama closed the deal in 2008–and he’s going to blow the deal in 2010.
September 9, 2010, 11:55 ambuddyglass says:
In countries where university is free, it is also frequently restricted to those who pass some sort of exit exam. It might make more sense to use “university diploma” in those countries since it serves as a proxy for “passed exit exam”. In the U.S. university isn’t free, but its also not restricted in any meaningful way. If you can pay then you can probably find a university that will admit you.
My goal isn’t to limit the vote to only people of a certain level of “intelligence” (which I agree would be somewhat arrogant and fraught with problems, not least of which being the difficulty of objectively measuring “intelligence”) but to exclude those above a certain threshold of ignorance. The trick here is that “ignorance” is a mutable trait. Someone who is “ignorant” can make himself “un-ignorant” should he decide he wants to participate in elections. It is much more difficult (if not impossible) for someone to become “more intelligent”.
The poll tax suggestion wasn’t intended to exclude the poor. Rather, to exclude those for whom the vote isn’t “worth” a mere $20. If its not worth $20 to you, then maybe we’re better off without your vote.
September 9, 2010, 11:59 amStuart the Viking says:
buddyglass: The problem with your solution is that it assumes that someone or some organization could be found that would (could?) be fair in administering it. That person/organization doesn’t exist. Even if such an organization could be created, there is no way to KEEP it fair.
On the topic of the Obama adminstration’s problem with public perception. I don’t think it helps them AT ALL that Obama keeps blaming the Repubs for blocking everything that they are trying to do to. GEESH…. They have a majority in the house, a majority in the Senate, AND the Presidency, and they can’t get anything done because of the Republicans? The American people aren’t stupid. They can at least COUNT. If you can’t get anything done with that kind of majority then you are seriously ineffective and need to rethink your strategy.
s
September 9, 2010, 12:03 pmbuddyglass says:
Eh. I think it could be done. Heck, make some sort of bi-partisan review board with members appointed by the RNC and DNC. As for administering the actual exam, here I was limiting myself to electronic voting systems. It would be pretty easy to insert a little quiz at the beginning before one actually starts selecting candidates.
Even without this suggestion, though, I think the other three could be beneficial.
September 9, 2010, 12:11 pmuh_clem says:
Excellent post, Prof Somin. Spot-on analysis of the problem, even though we disagree on the solution.
I’d opt for better education, including classes in critical thinking skills that address confirmation bias, evaluating propaganda, etc. rather than just getting the government out of the business of helping to solve society’s problems. Of course, I haven’t been a Libertarian (or a libertarian either) since I voted for David Koch all those many years ago. And I recognize that my proposed solution would probably just nibble at the margins if it worked at all.
I forget who it was that said that Democracy is the worst system, except for all the others.
September 9, 2010, 12:12 pmuh_clem says:
Unfortunately, having a majority in the Senate is not enough to accomplish much of anything. Filibusters, holds, and other procedural methods effectively allow a minority stifle almost all action.
I’m not sure a majority of Americans understand this, but the non-stupid ones do.
September 9, 2010, 12:17 pmMartinned says:
Well, that depends on how you look at it. If you describe everything you do after high school as “college”, then there’s a wide range of colleges in Europe, too. As long as you attend some level of high school – and the lowest levels don’t require much beyond attendance – you can attend one of them. Hence the division of colleges in discrete categories, where in the US the distinctions are more fluid. (Cf. France for example, where they distinguish between the universités – like the Sorbonne – which everyone can attend as long as they’ve passed their bac, and the grands écoles, which require a gruelling entrance exam.)
Point taken. I’m not sure though if, under the current system, the mere effort of going to the polling station and voting isn’t already enough to perform that function. The only problem with that one is that it discriminates against people with (high-paying) jobs, whose time is more valuable than the time of college students, housewives and the unemployed.
September 9, 2010, 12:29 pmMartinned says:
Thank you for once again demonstrating the concept of political ignorance. Under the glorious rules of procedure of particularly the senate, having a majority won’t do you much good.
September 9, 2010, 12:31 pmbuddyglass says:
I considered this. I know I’ve personally declined to vote in the past purely because of the inconvenience factor, so it does have that effect to some extent.
One thought: the $20 “fee” might serve to equalize the disincentive to those with high-paying jobs, since $20 is perceived as being “worth” less as income increases. At the same time, its not so large as to present a formidable barrier to a poor person who wants to vote. Street person? Maybe its a problem for him. Maybe. But someone living in subsidized housing, on Medicaid and using food stamps can probably still spare $20.
September 9, 2010, 12:46 pmsubpatre says:
The Senate can change those rules whenever —and if— it wants to. US Constitution Art I Sec 5 wherein “… a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business … Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings …” Apparently the Senate likes the current set of Procedures. Fancy that!
Thanks again for playing ‘political ignorance’.
September 9, 2010, 12:47 pmElliot says:
Political ignorance is an interesting topic, but a more interesting topic is the notion that some think they are really politically informed.
So, who here understood all the content and ramifications of the ObamaCare bill the day before the House voted for it? Financial reform? I’d suggest nobody here did. Nor do I think anyone here has a good idea of how it will actually effect health care and the economy. Yet how many lacked a position on these issues prior to the vote? Was that position justified by knowledge of the actual bill being considered? Ignorance rides on a continuum for each individual issue, and we all fall somewhere on each of those issue scales.
How many here are informed about the water issues in the west or proposed EPA regulations on farms? I suspect we choose our favorite issues and define political knowledge as a function of how conversant we are with those issues.
Anyone recall how Betsy McCaughey hammered a huge nail in Hillary Care by just reading the bill and reporting on it? Apparently few of the folks who considered themselves to be politically informed had bothered to do that.
September 9, 2010, 12:48 pmElliot says:
I’m not sure about all states, but where I live I can pick up a ballot about two weeks prior to the electiona and mail it in. Anyone know how many states allow this? Doesn’t Washington or Oregon have all mail-in voting? Hawaii?
September 9, 2010, 12:52 pmElliot says:
The non-stupid ones also understand the Senate sets its own rules.
September 9, 2010, 12:56 pmuh_clem says:
Yes. And they also understand that it takes a 2/3rds majority for the Senate to change its rules.
Did you have a point here? Seems like you and subpatre are under the illusion that the filibuster can be eliminated by a simple majority.
September 9, 2010, 1:04 pmSarcastro says:
The truly informed know that might makes right in the end. All this posturing – if you really believe what you say, you’ll make the government do your bidding, 2/3 majority bedamned!
September 9, 2010, 1:10 pmMartinned says:
I have to say, that was also my impression. Do you have a source for that 2/3rds requirement?
September 9, 2010, 1:24 pmPassing By says:
Uh_clem …
Every two years, at the beginning of each Congress, a majority of senators can set whatever rules they like for the Senate.
Historically, they’ve set rules that:
September 9, 2010, 1:36 pma) require a 2/3 majority to make rule changes later in that Congress
b) permit filibusters, etc.
Mark Field says:
There’s no “rule” which says that. The argument is that the Senate is a “continuing body”. By this logic, the rules from last session carry over to the current one, unless changed. In order to change the rules, you need a 2/3 (or 3/5, I forget) vote.
Of course, if the chair were to rule that the Senate is not a “continuing body”, and that ruling were to be upheld from the floor, then changes could be made by majority.
September 9, 2010, 1:37 pmsubpatre says:
Senate rules allow cloture —shutting down a filibuster— by 3/5 vote (60 votes max) the filabuster to end within 30 hours of the cloture. Constitutional authority to “do Business” is a simple majority, and Mason’s Manual states more eloquently than I can:
The continued use of filabusters —in reality either threatened use of, or fear of threatened use— is a charade. The Senate likes the rules it has set, including the ones they bemoan so loudly.
September 9, 2010, 1:41 pmAllan Walstad says:
If our reps don’t even read the bills they vote for, and given that a fair fraction of the devil may lurk in the details of 1,000-page bills, people at large can hardly be blamed for political ignorance, at least when it comes to legislative specifics. Now, if the government (at least the feds) were limited to a few roles, perhaps we’d all have a better chance of understanding what it does. That was, after all, the clear intent of the authors of the Constitution.
September 9, 2010, 1:56 pmElliot says:
It’s not an illusion. It can be done by majority at the start of the next Congress. Both parties hate the filibuster when they are the majority, but don’t want to let it go because they know their time as a minority is just around the corner.
September 9, 2010, 1:59 pmSarcastro says:
The political fallout among independents for eliminating the filibuster are truly negligible. It must be some sort of secret love for it that keeps it going!
September 9, 2010, 2:15 pmgecko says:
There is a different kind of political ignorance; those of the politicians and pundits who live in a bubble and overestimate their importance. Like expecting Obama to fix the economy or thinking Bush singlehandedly ruined it.
Politicians and governments are merely gatekeepers it is the everyday people who get all the work done, get most problems taken care of, and often find the most optimal solutions without intervention. When the government tries to interfere it usually makes things worse.
September 9, 2010, 2:18 pmMartinned says:
Not to forget that all this procedural screwing around makes the Senate as a body more powerful relative to the House and to the President.
September 9, 2010, 4:00 pmuh_clem says:
It’s not an illusion. It [ending the filibuster] can be done by majority at the start of the next Congress.
This may or may not be correct, depending on who you listen to. It turns on some fairly intricate parsing of language. I’m not going to say that you’re wrong, but your interpretation is at variance with the historical precedent.
My hunch is that if it was that easy it would have been done a long time ago. It’s not called the “nuclear option” for nothing.
In any case, subpartre’s assertion that they can change those rules whenever they want to is clearly false.
September 9, 2010, 4:13 pmMartinned says:
It’s nuclear because it is politically sensitive, not because it is legally difficult.
September 9, 2010, 4:41 pmKirk Parker says:
And uh_clem and Martinned provide an illustration, in turn, of the concept of ignorance of current events. Please tell us: exactly how many times did the Republicans actually engage in a real, live filibuster between January 2009 and today?
September 9, 2010, 4:46 pmHerb Spencer says:
“As a result, we get an electorate where the majority of voters have very low levels of knowledge and the more knowledgeable minority often does a poor job of evaluating what they know.”
Whoa, careful there, Ilya! What about what we’re witnessing now in the US, an “education of the proletariat” in a way and towards an end that Communism never imagined, let alone intended.
That proposal for extra votes for the higher educated sounds like a latter-day Lani Guinier option to me; whatever happened to her anyway, after Clinton, quite rightly, “threw her under the bus?”
September 9, 2010, 5:58 pmMartinned says:
AFAIK, the current rules do not require anyone to actually stand up and speak, so why does it matter? There’s no practical difference between filibustering and threatening to do so.
September 9, 2010, 6:09 pmKirk Parker says:
Martinned,
Yes, but you still have to invoke it. How many times has this been done recently?
September 9, 2010, 6:37 pmMartinned says:
I have no clue, though in my defense I’m not American.
BTW, I’d argue that there’s still preciously little practical difference between invoking a filibuster and threatening to do so. The possibility of filibustering looms over everything the Senate does, which is why it is entirely correct to say that it takes 60 votes to pass a bill. Most days, everybody just works with that 60 votes rule, without anyone actually filibustering anything.
September 9, 2010, 7:02 pmJonathan says:
And here in Aus you have to pay $20 if you don’t vote…
September 9, 2010, 9:23 pmFederalist Paupers » Blog Archive » The Ignorant and the Biased says:
[...] Ignorant and the Biased Ilya Somin has one of the more depressing posts you’ll read all day. Turns out, all voters are either ignorant of what they’re voting on, or so biased that they [...]
September 10, 2010, 1:20 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
Too bad they don’t teach economics at those universities. TANSTAAFL.
September 10, 2010, 10:19 amDuffy Pratt says:
I used to read these endless posts on voters’ political ignorance, but then I decided that it just isn’t worth the time.
September 10, 2010, 1:07 pm