Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog

"Everybody's ignorant: only on different subjects."
--Will Rogers

---------------------------

http://www.willrogers.org/

---------------------------

There's no institutional incentive for voters to vote intelligently on national issues because their votes are statistically insignificant. Most people prefer to decide on the basis of social and emotional factors, things like what their friends believe or what will make them feel good about themselves. Given this reality, it's surprising that democracy works as well as it does.

Probably the main reason it works is because the parties know that if they screw things up too badly, voters will get angry and vote against them on emotional grounds. The parties use advertising to try to sway people's feelings, and any major mistakes will feed into the other side's ads.

Voting is primarily a matter of emotion, not reason.

If you want people to use reason you need to make it matter how they vote. You could record each person's vote, then if their candidate won, voters would be individually penalized or rewarded (via changes to their taxes perhaps) depending on some objective measure of how their candidate did. It wouldn't be democracy and it might not work any better than what we have now, but people would be incentivized to vote with their heads and not their hearts.

As Thomas Franks pointed out (in "What's the Matter with Kansas") these people have absolutely no faith in the promises of the Democratic Party, because the Democratic party abandoned them a long time ago on the real bread-and-butter issues of immigration and trade. And for that, dear Brad, you and your fellow economists bear some responsibility. The very idea that free trade with low-wage goliaths like China and India would not hurt the wages of ordinary Americans!!!! And yet that is exactly what your profession professed ten years ago, starting with your godfather, Paul Samuelson, in the East Room of the White House. Liars!

1) Well, what was their favorite prime number? Average the primes to get the answer. If the average turns out not to be prime, proclaim or legislate that it is henceforth prime. The result will be our National Prime.

Thus do opinion polls help our country.

2) "Given this reality, it's surprising that democracy works as well as it does."

Democracy gives the appearance of working well in this country when both political parties are in reasonably good shape, so they both field reasonable candidates. Assuming that the electorate's choice is random, the result is often adequate, occasionally even stellar.

At the present time, both political parties in the U.S. are, for different reasons, in very bad shape.

And democracy, in case you hadn't noticed, is not functioning at all.

The Republicans are much better at appealing to irrational, ignorant voters. Democrats -- at least moderate Democrats -- often appear to regard irrational appeals as something they do not even need to combat or reply to.

One of the mainstays of Bush's stump speech was the assertion that Kerry's plan to raise taxes on the rich should be regarded by middle class voters as threatening, because rich people had lawyers and accountants, and therefore, middle class people ended up footing the bill.

It did not make a lot of sense, but it worked, in an almost hyponotic way.

Lots of people are apparently ignorant of the extent to which Bush has promoted redistribution of income from the poor and middle class to the very, very rich. It is the most coherent theme in his general program, but it is underreported. And when redistribution is referenced by reactionary commentators, such as Newsweek's Robert J Samuelson, the thesis is usually that these "changes" are not the result of political policies, but mysterious economic forces, akin in their controllability to the weather.

Democrats, generally, do nothing and say nothing. Brad DeLong would prefer to suggest that Bush economists are failing technicians, unable to deliver x number of new jobs per month; he never says, hey, they have delivered a huge redistribution of income, with all the productivity growth going to corporate profits -- these guys are extraordinarily good at their jobs -- trouble is they are working for different goals.

Democrats need to have a coherent story about what the Republicans under Bush are up to. They need to repeat that story endlessly. Every policy has to analyzed in terms of its impact on the diverging fortunes of the very rich and merely middle class. In short, the malevolent corruption of the Bush Administration has to be revealed and attacked endlessly. Then, we might have a chance to reclaim our country.

Bear in mind that nearly half of eligible voters never vote, and another 10 to 15 percent vote only once in four years; turnout was up only modestly this time. I always find that a sobering thought. In this election as in all others, thoughtful and rational undecideds were rare at the end, and swamped by the undecided-whether-to-bother voting bloc. In a real sense it is the once-in-four years crowd, few of whom are at all politically active in any other way, who choose our presidents.

Never underestimate the phenomenal ignorance of the average American voter.

I remember that, during the 2000 election, a woman voter was being interviewed by someone on NPR. The woman's issue was gun control--she was in favor of it and wanted more of it. She said to the interviewer something like: I want to find out what Al Gore thinks about it. If he isn't for it, I'm going straight back to Bush. (As if Bush had a stance to her liking, which of course he didn't.)

This year, my favorite was a woman in Wisconsin who said she was voting Republican because the Democrats had been in charge for a long time and things had gotten worse. (The interviewer of course didn't point out that we'd had Republican control at all levels of the federal government for two years and maybe she should be mad at the Republicans.)

Corporate parties, corporate candidates, corporate media, corporate welfare....

-------------------

Manufacturing Consent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

-------------------

...Most people just don't CARE anymore....

-------------------

Participation in Elections for President and U.S. Representatives, 1930–2000

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763629.html

-------------------

...And it's NOT because most of them are 'ignorant', 'irrational' or 'emotional' either. The fact is, for most people, it really doesn't make a DAMNED bit of difference (on 'the ground') WHICH of the 'established' parties they 'support'...

-------------------

Deciphering The Hidden Language of Finance: Wall Street as a Colonial Power

http://www.divinerightofcapital.com/newpage22.htm

-------------------

...It's just a 'show'. The game is 'rigged.' They're BOUND to lose--no matter what.

And MOST people know it.

Maybe the Social Darwinists were right after all. And America is currently on the shit end of that stick, my friends.

That sound you hear is the sucking sound of our gene pool emptying down the drain.

I think that the economy function of attitudes is prime for much of the electorate. They think clearly...most folks are not really (too) stupid... about the things that REALLY matter to them. The rest? They are the bubble people who think that someone else will figure it all out.

Case in point. I have 2 dear friends. One a Lesbian, one a Social worker. Both have Masters degrees. Both voted for Bush. I asked them why, why, why? My Lesbian friend, near as I can tell, thinks that "everything is going to work out in the end" and I am advised not to worry. My Social worker friend tells me that "I like his domestic policies" In exploration, it becomes clear that he has no idea what Bush's friggin' domestic policies even are. These are NOT stupid people....but they sure seem that way.

I dont understand why we are trying to transport 'Democracy' abroad to other countries when we can't guarantee it in our own; if this the richest country on earth with most number of phones, cables, sattelite dishes, tv channels, newspapers, reporters, money thrown on politicking and lobbying per capita cannot guarantee that everyone will have and use facts (and not a manipulated version of facts) to choose their leader/s, pray what guarantee is there that 9 million Afghani cowherds and another million Afghani teachers, lawyers and professionals took their first electoral decision last month in even a fractionally more optimal manner.

Is it perhaps that our much-talked about miltary industrial complex (MIC) just wishes to upset the status quo, muddy the waters for those poor folks (Saddam and Iraq included) so that whatever little stability and progress they achieve is quickly wiped out so that they are forever like that toy monkey climbing up the metal pole only to come sliding down with the next swing of the pole; what most countries and economies need is stability and day-to-day local organization and control, which even a country run by as bad a boy as Saddam did have; take away the stability and what they MIC does for our corporate buddies is cut potential competition to size before it becomes a problem. Why China and India have been spared so far to allow them to grow as strong as they have, my thesis cannot explain; but China and India, be very afraid - it will not be long before, the beleaguered mid-western states rise up a healthy cost-wise competition to even the Chinaa and Indias of the world - when sourcing has thus been firmly transferred back to the midwest, and when China and India can be dispensed with, they will be sent scurrying down the monkey pole - I hope for their people's sake they have a Plan B!!

How 'bout an election year national game show.

Registered voters get called randomly, and they win big bucks if they can answer questions about issues and candidates.

Put it on the TEEvee.

Motivate voters to register and learn by having a Big 'Ol election year game show.

Call random registered voters, and ask them questions about issues and candidates.

Voter wins big bucks, on TEEvee, if they know their stuff.

I dont understand why we are trying to transport 'Democracy' abroad to other countries when we can't guarantee it in our own; if this the richest country on earth with most number of phones, cables, sattelite dishes, tv channels, newspapers, reporters, money thrown on politicking and lobbying per capita cannot guarantee that everyone will have and use facts (and not a manipulated version of facts) to choose their leader/s, pray what guarantee is there that 9 million Afghani cowherds and another million Afghani teachers, lawyers and professionals took their first electoral decision last month in even a fractionally more optimal manner.

Is it perhaps that our much-talked about miltary industrial complex (MIC) just wishes to upset the status quo, muddy the waters for those poor folks (Saddam and Iraq included) so that whatever little stability and progress they achieve is quickly wiped out so that they are forever like that toy monkey climbing up the metal pole only to come sliding down with the next swing of the pole; what most countries and economies need is stability and day-to-day local organization and control, which even a country run by as bad a boy as Saddam did have; take away the stability and what they MIC does for our corporate buddies is cut potential competition to size before it becomes a problem. Why China and India have been spared so far to allow them to grow as strong as they have, my thesis cannot explain; but China and India, be very afraid - it will not be long before, the beleaguered mid-western states rise up a healthy cost-wise competition to even the Chinaa and Indias of the world - when sourcing has thus been firmly transferred back to the midwest, and when China and India can be dispensed with, they will be sent scurrying down the monkey pole - I hope for their people's sake they have a Plan B!!

"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." -- Schiller

What's to be done? Ask if they're interested in euthanasia and give it to them if they say yes.

It's become clear to me that many so-called undecided voters were really Bush voters who were embarrassed to admit it. The outspokenness of some Bush supporters blinded me to this other group.

It's become clear to me that many so-called undecided voters were really Bush voters who were embarrassed to admit it. The outspokenness of some Bush supporters blinded me to this other group.

Half wrote, "Most people prefer to decide on the basis of social and emotional factors, things like what their friends believe or what will make them feel good about themselves."

That's not at all clear. African-Americans, for example, are resolutely anti-Republican, and that's rational IMHO. The wealthy vote Republican because they want their taxes cut---again rational (though in this case despicable).

Re: improving the electoral process.

Cf. www.theonion.com- "Republicans Call For Privatization of Next Election"

I never saw an article before the election which asked psychologists to explain undecided voters as people with pathological decision-making disabilites. That would have maybe told us more.

How to get more people involved?

Get your ass to The Daily Show with Jon Stweart, SNL, MAD TV, etc. Of course don't just go there and teach a class, know what you want to say about the economy and get some jokes in it. Get Soros and Buffett and others on as well. Want the stock market explained, get Peter Lynch or maybe Stanely Weill(SP?) on as well.

It's funny. My first post on this blog, so many months ago, was 'is American democracy possible?' That's still the question. We are so populous, that a single vote doesn't seem to count. People give up. We may simply be to big to be democratic at the national level. The solution may be to break us up into smaller entities, like European countries, where a single vote counts for more. Never thought I would find myself arguing for states' rights, and here I am. Shows how far we've descended.

Wilder says: “Lots of people are apparently ignorant of the extent to which Bush has promoted redistribution of income from the poor and middle class to the very, very rich.”

I prepared to believe your statement because income data support it. But what is the remedy for this problem? Higher taxes? If taxes are increased only for the “very very rich” (does that mean more than $500k?) how will that increase my income? Most of the people I know who have suffered the loss of a job or stagnant wages can trace it to either competition from low-paid non-immigrant visa holders, or to outsourcing? How is Bush worse than his competition on this issue? Would you support a freeze on the H1-B program?

Here in Washinggton State the voters have gone intitive crazy, we have so many inititives every year that they perhaps provide a solution to the idiot voter problem: If you cast a ballot in which you vote to both decrease revenues and increase services, your enitre ballot is voided. You've proven your self unworthy.

A. Zarkov: the usual redistribution formula in Europe is to have high levels of social spending (the famous "unaffordable welfare state") that is financed by more or less progressive taxation and disproportionately benefits those who could not otherwise pay for whatever it is. Universal health care is the paridigmatic example, along with free or low cost higher education.

'Often, once I would engage undecided voters, they would list concerns, such as the rising cost of health care; but when I would tell them that Kerry had a plan to lower health-care premiums, they would respond in disbelief--not in disbelief that he had a plan, but that the cost of health care was a political issue. It was as if you were telling them that Kerry was promising to extend summer into December'

The unintended irony and comedy is off the scale. The joke is on the author not the undecided voters.

Summer extended into December. Exactly. What a smart group of voters. Sounds like something Milton Friedman might agree with. Their methods might be a good deal more reflexive but a decent enough conclusion is reached. A conclusion that is defensible in several different ways.

That the author finds such a conclusion astounding is really more a self commentary than a meaningful commentary about undecided voters.

Bruce Wilder wrote: "One of the mainstays of Bush's stump speech was the assertion that Kerry's plan to raise taxes on the rich should be regarded by middle class voters as threatening, because rich people had lawyers and accountants, and therefore, middle class people ended up footing the bill.

It did not make a lot of sense, but it worked, in an almost hyponotic way."

It did NOT work in an "ALMOST hypnotic way;" it worked in a GENUINELY hypnotic way. Consider the last and most effective ad the Bush campaign ran, the "in the quiet of the voting booth" spot. This is a bog-standard hypnosis script and you will find it (in essence) in Tepperwein or any other standard hypnotism text.

If you watch a video of a Bush stump speech, you can't help but notice the pacing, the use of key phrases, etc.; This is straight-up Neuro-Linguistic Programming technique.

Democrats have to realize that all the people who vote on fact are already voting Dem... ;-) If you want more votes you HAVE TO GET THEM FROM PEOPE WHO DO NOT VOTE ON FACT, but who are reachable using these sorts of standard marketing techniques (e.g. hypnotism and NLP). Democrats need to hire some memetics experts now to be ready for 2006.

Carville says we'll never beat them until we've got a story. Democrats, or rather Gore and Kerry, didn't have stories. Or Kerry had one until the Swift Boat Vets diminished it. In a lot of polling data you can see a divide that paralells the red/blue divide. The blues vote on policies. The reds vote on their concept of the man. For many the question is he a good Christian, but for others it's a kind of searchfor the "good king." Is he the kind of man I want leading the country? You can see this in both Bill Clinton's election and his impeachment. He had a story--"The Man From Hope"--real or not it connected and he connected. He could go into a church and preach and talk about his faith. In the impeachment, the reds were outraged that this kind of man was president, while the blues were saying yes, but his policies are ok. Effectively, they're talking past each other, two sets of people saying yes, but to the other. That's why Democrats need a story as well as policies.

Carville says we'll never beat them until we've got a story. Democrats, or rather Gore and Kerry, didn't have stories. Or Kerry had one until the Swift Boat Vets diminished it. In a lot of polling data you can see a divide that paralells the red/blue divide. The blues vote on policies. The reds vote on their concept of the man. For many the question is whether or not he's a good Christian, but for others it's a kind of search for the "good king." Is he the kind of man I want leading the country? You can see this in both Bill Clinton's election and his impeachment. He had a story--"The Man From Hope"--real or not it connected and he connected. He could go into a church and preach and talk about his faith. In the impeachment, the reds were outraged that this kind of man was president, while the blues were saying yes, but his policies are ok. Effectively, they're talking past each other, two sets of people saying yes, but to the other. That's why Democrats need a story as well as policies and Republicans have to hope that it doesn't get so bad in Kansas that policies start to matter.