http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN4O32105020080425
Also, on a more serious note, an astonishing poll statistic from the recent Pennsylvania primary, from another Reuters article:
"About one in seven Pennsylvania voters said race was an issue and that group voted overwhelmingly against Obama."This is really, really awful. These two points taken together could be evidence that a substantial group of people are voting against Obama at least in part because he is black (although this is not necessarily true). There are a lot of implications around this statistic, but I'm struggling to figure out what are the most important ones - here are some of the things I'm kicking around:
- This is a democratic primary. Democrats are usually seen as the more race tolerant party. This statistic obviously points elsewhere. What would it look like if a group of republicans were asked the same question?
- Does this say something about blue-collar, union liberals vs. white collar ones. What were the results of this question in California?
- What if you asked the same question replacing "race" with "gender"?
- Clearly, the race or gender of a candidate (at least, at the national level) is only tangentially related to the candidate's policy. What percentage of the electorate is voting based on tangential issues (Nixon's debate night shave, Reagan's age, Clinton's philandering, Obama's pastor, Hilary's tax returns, McCain's resemblance to Emperor Palpatine, James Madison's crooked wig)? What is the boundary in politics between crap that obviously doesn't have to matter and crap that might? Does this hurt democracy (Malcolm Gladwell might argue otherwise)? Can it be stopped or slowed?
- If politcal battles were based only on the policy differences of the candidates, how many people could form coherent, well-thought out opinions about the race (right now, my answer to this question is "zero".)
- There is evidence in both machine learning and sociology that if we have many people making decisions only slightly better than random chance, their collective decisions end up being correct with very high probability. Are elections an example of this principle? (It is hard to say for sure, because we never know which answer in an election was "correct").
8 comments:
1. I can't believe they're trying to ban bull nuts on trucks.
2. I had to look up Emperor Palpatine. Then I laughed.
3. I think the ignorance of the electorate pointed out in the posting gives me even more reason to doubt the whole concept of trying to convince people to vote. I've mentioned this before. We should start a "Don't Vote" campaign. The slogan is: "The less you vote, the more my vote means". If people don't want to vote, good. We should make it even harder than it is. Not unfair to any certain race, creed or whatever. Just unfair to idiots.
Dad - w.r.t. your point three above:
My points five and six were attempting to open up some new thought in this direction:
To paraphrase my five: We know that most of the electorate is ignorant - but in a world this complex, is anyone really qualified to choose the leader of the free world. I certainly am not, and am leery of those who think they are.
To paraphrase my six: On the other hand there's evidence that lots of weak decision-makers will collectively make a good decision. Does this mean we should have as many idiots voting as possible?
Thoughts?
If the question is does anyone spend enough time and have an objective enough approach to make a completely educated decision, then my opinion is that the answer has to be no. No one is really qualified to choose the leader of the free world, but ideally with enough people voting in their own self-interest (which doesn't mean selfishness) the "best" fitting candidate will emerge the winner.
If we've learned anything from the last 8 years it has to be that the decision between candidates DOES matter, and that they're certainly not different-looking clones of the same centrist politician.
On the optimistic side, I DO think that these days - despite how complex world may be compared to 50 or 100 years ago - the general public has a much better chance to make an informed opinion as to which candidate is the best fit for them. The internet is a potentially useful tool in determining this, whereas 50 or 100 years ago it was more of a straight party vote ("we're Democrats" for example) or a familial vote. The internet certainly has contributed to the amount of garbage out there, but there is also good info as well. Want to know a candidate's position on a particular policy? Their website is usually detailed enough to find out. You may find some vague language in there and of course campaign promises don't often lead to matching policies but you'd be surprised how specific they are in their goals. The differences between candidates is much easier to see as you're not just relying on debates and talking heads anymore.
The unfortunate thing in my opinion is that a lot of people still do rely on the talking heads and mass media way too much for their information when it comes to electoral campaigns, and as a result you get a lot of the gossip garbage instead of the real meat and potatoes. People decide their vote based on who they'd most like to share a beer with, who has what health problems, and sadly it seems for some, who is which race or which gender.
I'll be really interested in seeing how this one turns out. I haven't memorized each candidate's position papers but I for one have been thankful to have so much more detailed information available to assist me in making my choice.
In economics, classical economists base all their theories on producer and consumer behavior on a world where perfect information exists, and hope for the best. There are certainly parallels for it in the political realm, and Charlie has touched on the heart of it here.
Both of your comments are certainly valid, and I would find it hard to dispute the assertion that no ONE is really qualified to choose the leader of the free world. That's why millions are asked to choose. This helps us come up with the "best fit" as Brian writes. My point is not that the ignorant should not be allowed to vote (double negative and all). It is that they should not be begged to vote. They should not be "urged" to vote. They should be encouraged to stay home. You both make the point that there is plenty of information out there about every candidate. And even if that information is only coming from late night comedians, it is better than nothing. But if someone is so ignorant that he/she isn't interested in even that stuff, then why do I want that person to vote? I don't. So I say, don't even tell people where to vote. Make it like a scavenger hunt. Make people work for it. Then the millions who make the effort will be the millions who care. And that can't be bad.
Okay! So Brian claims that the increasing availability of information could lead to a better-informed electorate. Kim claims that stopping "Get out the vote" campaigns could lead to a more intelligent electorate. Both of these things are probably true.
But one of the things I'm getting at is that neither may matter at all. Results in Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink" suggests that people can often make the right decision on seemingly useless information. Results in machine learning suggest that, with enough people making decisions only slightly better than chance, the majority decision will almost always be correct.
Taken together, the implication is crazy: We want as many idiots as possible voting on whatever crappy information they like, and this will produce the best possible result. I'm not convinced one way or another, but it's a really interesting perspective.
For the opposite opinion, read Al Gore's book, "The Assault On Reason". It's an insightful commentary on what kind of thinkers society is producing, and what this means for the electorate. It also convinced me that he's one of the smartest politicians of this generation (speaking of screwing ourselves eight years ago . . .)
I still think with all that has been said between Charlie and Brian that voting Pro-Life is a good way to go. Because I think everything else comes out the same no matter who you vote for.
The two arguments against Mom's comment above, are, I suppose:
1.) This is not true because everything does not come out the same no matter who you vote for. Regardless of what you think of it, it is difficult to imagine Al Gore would have chosen to go after Iraq in the same way Bush has. This means far from everything has been the same 83,441 Iraqi civilians, as well as our nation's fiscal health. And that's just one issue.
2.) This is not true because even abortion comes out the same no matter who you vote for. I forget where I read this, but I read a conservative editorial talking about how abortion is one of conservatism's "broken promises". Why, with more than 25 years of Republican presidents since Roe has the legal status of abortion failed to change significantly? It appears that conservatives have been running on this issue, and then doing nothing about it.
The reality is much more complex: The justification for the right to abortion established in Roe is based on a constitutional right to privacy. This latter right comes from the decision Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 - a case prohibiting laws against contraception. Reversing Roe would mean a blow to the legal availability of contraception - something viewed as a right by a vast majority of Americans. If you're interested in how the constitution supports a right to contraception, or a right to raise your children how you want to (I was!), then check out substantive due process.
I'm not saying that voting pro-life is in any way bad. I'm just saying that 1.) There are other things that matter and 2.) Roe isn't really an executive or legislative issue (right now), it's a judicial one, and although justices are appointed by the president, votes, emotions, and political affiliations take a back seat to constitutional scholarship on this question.
If Roe is reversed at some point, then pro-life votes of course become very important.
Oh, and again, I'm not saying we shouldn't be voting pro-life. One should vote for that if one thinks that is important. I only found issue with the rationale Mom was using to justify such a vote.
Rationales I might use to justify such a vote are, "Abortion is so much more important than all other issues that any small impact this vote may have on abortion is far more important than larger impacts on other issues." Or maybe, "My conscience wouldn't let me rest if I didn't vote pro-life." Or maybe, "My faith leads me to believe that God will vouchsafe a prosperous future to a pro-life nation."
Post a Comment