Jan 23, 2023·edited Jan 23, 2023Liked by David Hugh-Jones
Two points I want to make.
Many versions of the "rational ignorance" argument (economists who argue voting is waste of time) sound often too much overstated overcorrection to a particularly idealist notion of democracy.
Agreed, very few people have done a PhD level study of their interests and party platforms and vote according to super duper deep analysis. Some people vote for extremely shallow reasons. Yet there is something a bit more to politics in democracies than random fads. Here is a choice quote from your own text:
"Most of the world’s countries are either democracies where everyone can vote, or autocracies where nobody can vote or votes are meaningless."
In a democracy, votes in aggregate are not meaningless, they decide elections. However, one can't be blamed for thinking all votes must be meaningless if one thinks a single vote is meaningless.
Voting in a democracy is probably best viewed as a sort of contract or coordination problem. One vote is not enough to affect the election, but "one x 50% of the electorate" votes is enough. Thus, it is a worthwhile thing to have around a large coalition of voters that can affect an election outcome aligned with your interests. Likewise, it is worthwhile to spend some effort in support of its continued existence as long as it appears to be around, for instance, occasionally go out and cast a vote, or donate to the party to support their "get out the vote" campaign. (Facilitating that coalition is costly for the party / lobby group, so they probably must get something out of it to make the deal worth their while, too.)
I grant the rational ignorance must kick in at some point, because people often are ignorant of politics and most people spend minimal amount of time in any coalition building work. But it is more than zero, and voting in elections is not maybe as irrational as it may appear. I think it can partly understood as just people understanding deals on intuitive level: "my vote for part A is not needed, but everyone thought so, nobody would vote, and nobody voting would make it stupid easy for party B to win because they could send just one person".
About the rational interest: Consider any labor / social democrat / socialist party in Western / European democracies during the 20th century. Predominantly they tried to get votes by presenting party platforms that appeared / claimed to serve labor interests, and often had better relations with the local trade unions than the local conservative party. Some politicians and economists would disagree were such policies truly in their rational interest, but it is a different discussion altogether. Many would concede they tried to appeal to working class interests. A large number of thoughtful people thought so. I think it is compatible with a model of working class people directionally voting according to their supposed interests (within confides of information environment and cost of information).
The second point: in the middle of "democracy - autocracy" spectrum in your analysis, the place where various forms of oligarchy would go, I think this is where more detailed model would be nice. There are very few formal constitutional oligarchies, but I think there needs to be more consideration the polities that are more oligarchic than they appear. It is common to make allowances for this in case of autocrats -- Putin governs a country that is formally a democracy, with elections and parties, yet Russia is not sensibly modeled as a Western style democracy.
Also, an unrelated random point concerning democracy and oligarchy and your graph of electorate size: Is it coincidence that "some hundred(s)" is about the right ballpark for the Roman senate or the Athenian oligarchy of the Four Hundred or size of most parliaments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislatures_by_number_of_members ?
Two points I want to make.
Many versions of the "rational ignorance" argument (economists who argue voting is waste of time) sound often too much overstated overcorrection to a particularly idealist notion of democracy.
Agreed, very few people have done a PhD level study of their interests and party platforms and vote according to super duper deep analysis. Some people vote for extremely shallow reasons. Yet there is something a bit more to politics in democracies than random fads. Here is a choice quote from your own text:
"Most of the world’s countries are either democracies where everyone can vote, or autocracies where nobody can vote or votes are meaningless."
In a democracy, votes in aggregate are not meaningless, they decide elections. However, one can't be blamed for thinking all votes must be meaningless if one thinks a single vote is meaningless.
Voting in a democracy is probably best viewed as a sort of contract or coordination problem. One vote is not enough to affect the election, but "one x 50% of the electorate" votes is enough. Thus, it is a worthwhile thing to have around a large coalition of voters that can affect an election outcome aligned with your interests. Likewise, it is worthwhile to spend some effort in support of its continued existence as long as it appears to be around, for instance, occasionally go out and cast a vote, or donate to the party to support their "get out the vote" campaign. (Facilitating that coalition is costly for the party / lobby group, so they probably must get something out of it to make the deal worth their while, too.)
I grant the rational ignorance must kick in at some point, because people often are ignorant of politics and most people spend minimal amount of time in any coalition building work. But it is more than zero, and voting in elections is not maybe as irrational as it may appear. I think it can partly understood as just people understanding deals on intuitive level: "my vote for part A is not needed, but everyone thought so, nobody would vote, and nobody voting would make it stupid easy for party B to win because they could send just one person".
About the rational interest: Consider any labor / social democrat / socialist party in Western / European democracies during the 20th century. Predominantly they tried to get votes by presenting party platforms that appeared / claimed to serve labor interests, and often had better relations with the local trade unions than the local conservative party. Some politicians and economists would disagree were such policies truly in their rational interest, but it is a different discussion altogether. Many would concede they tried to appeal to working class interests. A large number of thoughtful people thought so. I think it is compatible with a model of working class people directionally voting according to their supposed interests (within confides of information environment and cost of information).
The second point: in the middle of "democracy - autocracy" spectrum in your analysis, the place where various forms of oligarchy would go, I think this is where more detailed model would be nice. There are very few formal constitutional oligarchies, but I think there needs to be more consideration the polities that are more oligarchic than they appear. It is common to make allowances for this in case of autocrats -- Putin governs a country that is formally a democracy, with elections and parties, yet Russia is not sensibly modeled as a Western style democracy.
Also, an unrelated random point concerning democracy and oligarchy and your graph of electorate size: Is it coincidence that "some hundred(s)" is about the right ballpark for the Roman senate or the Athenian oligarchy of the Four Hundred or size of most parliaments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislatures_by_number_of_members ?