by frog
I just came across this post on Scienceblogs:
The underlying assumption, of course, is that issues matter, that voters are fundamentally rational agents who vote for candidates based on a coherent set of principles. In other words, they assume that my political preferences reflect some mixture of ideology and selfish calculation. I’ll vote for the guy who best matches my geopolitics and tax bracket.
The problem, as political scientist Larry Bartels notes, is that people aren’t rational: we’re rationalizers. Our brain prefers a certain candidate or party for a really complicated set of subterranean reasons and then, after the preference has been unconsciously established, we invent rational sounding reasons to justify our preferences.
Jonah Lehrer is making a very similar case to that Drew Weston made in The Political Brain which it seems, according to the waiting list at the Parliamentary Library, everybody in Parliament is reading. Essentially it seems that even those of us who think we’re following politics and policy debates fairly closely are making up our minds when we vote on a set of influences that we may not even know are there. It seems our inner amphibian has a stronger control over our mind than we’re willing to acknowledge.
Well, it may be true but I’m going to irrationally continue to discuss politics and policies nonetheless. You’re all welcome to participate in the charade by continuing to read and comment.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Thu, July 24th, 2008
Tags: drew weston, Frog, frogblog, green party, irrational, jonah lehrer, new zealand, rational, science, the political brain, voting
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
This is nothing new. Read Walter Lippmann (1921) on “Public policy”. William James probably had something to say on the topic too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is great if the progressive MP’s are reading Drew Westens book. I have his book beside my bed and frequently delve into it, and I also have an interview with him where he explores in depth the relativity of the ‘Little Engine that Could’ as a progressive story.
I recently recommended the book to an MP who shall remain nameless.
Great book for progressive political junkies!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Interesting, and no doubt holds much truth. I think the Republicans were on to this in a way in the last decade and a bit in their appeals for people to vote on ‘values’ rather than what they perhaps ‘rationally’ would – class!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘confirmation bias’ is another way of labelling all this…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think it is important to acknowledge that we each have our own blind biases. And that we do “rationalize” to justify our feelings to ourselves.
This probably explains why we have so many different views in Parliament.
In reality every issue only has one “best fit” answer, but we seem to prefer polarisation rather than consensus. We like to stick with our own predetermined focus rather than accomodate the opinions of others.
I think this might suggest that there is a good deal of value in accepting the outcome of properly conducted public opinion polls: the consensus opinion of the group can overcome the (possibly irrational) bias of individuals.
Perhaps there is room for a political party that bases its decisions on the outcomes of opinion polls. Maybe the people genuinely do know best.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greengeek suggests:
“Perhaps there is room for a political party that bases its decisions on the outcomes of opinion polls. Maybe the people genuinely do know best.”
I reply:
The questions in such public opinion polls would be of concern.
For example: “wording” questions is not a straightforward task. (They are, after all, just a summary of a summary of a summary … of the situation.)
It can often/easily be a case of: “Tell me what you want the outcome to be, and I will write the questions to ensure that result.”
(Believe me! I taught this stuff.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In reality every issue only has one “best fit? answer
Erm – I’m not sure I can agree with that! Take a simple proposition (or issue), such as how to get the number of doctors we need to adequately serve the needs of NZ society. One possible solution is “Student loans to people who qualify as Doctors and agree to work in New Zealand for 20 years after graduation should be totally written off, with no payments required during those 20 years”, another is “Doctors, at all grades, should be paid the greater of the grade equivalent in the UK, Australia or Canada”, or “people who qualify as Doctors overseas should be able to undertake a one-year ‘practical proof of capability’ working as a houseman, which, if they ‘pass’ in the same way as an NZ educated Houseman will result in their being accredited to the level of their ability as evidenced to the appropriate college of practitioners’.
Each of those solutions is potentially a Best-Fit, based on whose perspective you are coming from. What would you select as Best-Fit policy (you can, of course, postulate your own, these three are not an exhaustive list).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Perhaps there is room for a political party that bases its decisions on the outcomes of opinion polls. Maybe the people genuinely do know best.”
Seems to have worked for Labour.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Definitely option one is the option I would most support. However, I take your point that others would see some benefit in the other options.
Perhaps these options are not mutually exclusive however. The “one best fit” might include all three options.
My original point though is this: Our electoral system tends to favour the “group mentality”. At least during election year anyway. If we consider it acceptable to elect a government based on a snapshot of public opinion, could we not also trust the numbers to reveal what people wanted on other issues??
If a party offered itself as being prepared to follow the polls on each issue (maybe with a 75% cutoff being set as a mandate) it might find substantial support.
There is some merit in the idea that “2.5 million kiwis cant be wrong”.
I think NZers are generally inclusive and I don’t think a poll-based system would penalise minorities the way the old First-past-the-Post system did.
That system only listened to the electorate once every three years, whereas a poll-based party under MMP would (should) be more responsive.
Eredwen does make a fair point that the polling would need to be high quality. I think we have some pollsters who would be up to the task.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greengeek,
.
democracy only works when the populas is both interested and informed. Judging by how much the average new zealander knows about our system of government or even about our electoral system, i think opinion polls would be a terrible way to decide. I mean to say, the average new zealander cannot be terribly inteligent when labour and national get over 80% of the vote, they spend outside their means and have purly reactionary opinions
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hmmmm. Verrrry interesting comment. Do you mean that these people (although making up 80%) should not get what they want???
If 80% want to keep the right to smack their kids, you think they should be ignored?
And if you are correct that they are not intelligent does that mean non-intelligent people do not deserve to have the life they want?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greengeek,
Interesting territory there, very interesting territory.
I support representitive democracy where people over a certain age may vote, but only because any acceptions to the universal vote drasticly increase the chances for couruption; and the illusion of a choice has large implications for public stability.
And i support democracy over other forms of government because although there is less ability to make progress than other forms, there is also less tendancy to move backwards.
If one cannot obtain the life they want why should they deserve it?
I think that the decision that leads to the most favorable outcome should be chosen, at times this wuld mean catering to the public will, at others it would mean ignoring it, even if it is 80%.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
True
True. I felt MMP increased that same advantage. I hoped it would slow down changes until the public had time to accept/reject them. Don’t think it has worked quite as well as I’d hoped. Maybe more attention to public opinion polls would improve it further.
But what if you were part of the 80% and someone else continually had the ability to decide “the most favourable outcome” and it wasnt in line with what your 80% wanted?
I’m starting to think that one decision opportunity every three years is not enough for me. And the politicians are planning to increase it to 4 yearly. Dangerous I think.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I would rather have elections every 5 years, and then make it so a referedum can demonstrate a lack of confidence in the government and require the governer general to absolve parliment and call an election if a large enough amount is achieved.
That way if they constently go against the will then they are out. but even as it is, particualy with mmp, if they constently go against the will then chances are their coalition partners will withdraw and the government will not be able to demonstrate the confidence of the house. if not, well theres always mass movements.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
absolve parliament? NO WAY. Convict the perps and send ‘em directly to jail!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The performance of the electorate is a vastly interesting area. So many solutions have been mooted relating to who can govern and vote, and so few have actually worked. Some have not (I think) been fairly tried, but “the consent of the governed” must be obtained.
Restrictions based on age are common and are probably justified in terms of development and maturity and limiting the influence of parents in getting kids to vote a certain way.
Restrictions based on “intelligence” turned into a hell of discriminatory testing that excluded people on socio-economic and related racial grounds (never fairly tried/used and likely never will be).
Restrictions based on gender were common but have never been justified and have never been tried “the other way ’round”.
Restrictions based on wealth/property ownership were the rule and helped keep the wealthy getting wealthier and the poor poorer for some centuries.
Proposed rather elegantly (by Heinlein) but never tried is restriction based on “service to the country”. I know that his views on corporal punishment would shock some Greens right out of their shorts, but often missed is that restricting the franchise and government office to people who actually volunteer to serve in the military or some other branch of service, who actually put the good of the country ahead of their own self-interest at least once…. might as a group do better in public service than politicians drawn from the general public.
What is now is an expensive form of government that is influenced more by the wealthy than any other single group. Money influences elections and the party of wealth in its two guises (Republican/Democrat in the US or Labour/National here), is able to control the votes of the sheeple. Which is why we continue to be shorn.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ; I once discussed such an idea with my son (a keen student of politics) and we felt such an idea had merit, perhaps even as some sort of check/balance that would be in place instead of a (somewhat ineffective) Governer General. But then we decided that we needed to look no further than Fiji to see where it might take us.
Is that a good or bad thing though…?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
(chuckle) I think sapient meant dissolve not absolve. Slightly different outcomes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
yup, dissolve, language and communication arnt my best areas
I have been quite attracted to such a system for some time but am weary that when you draw a line; where that line lies is inevitably up to those on the top-side and can be altered to suit their desires, as such i beleive that a system like we have now is much more sustainable. much the same applies for an age line, though the thing with age lines is that most people pass it eventualy, which balances it out to a degree. I support a line at 20 (even if it doe mean i couldint vote in this election) because the politicians will inevitably cater to the desires of the lowist age group, that is, if you allow voting at 16, the consumption ages and such will all drop to that point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient I liked it the way you wrote it. Not only was it a GREAT straight line but it also at one hit, got rid of parliament and implied that they are in fact guilty of something they need absolution for… I didn’t reckon it was completely intentional, but your subconscious guide may be better than you know
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The problem in Fiji is overt seizure of power. not accepted. The first line, consent of the governed, still operates and as a rule it keeps the mob happy but it is more important than merely being a pacifier. The military enforces the will of the military in Fiji. Not exactly Heinlein’s model in which they’d have to be finished with their service to be eligible to vote or to be elected to office. Nor did his model require them to be warriors. Also consider the model in which he posited it arising. It was not a relinquishing of power by the electorate or seizure of power from it, it was a re-establishment of order out of anarchy.
I saw the first 30 seconds of the film and decided that we could probably power a small city from the his spinning in his grave. I didn’t watch more.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If we consider it acceptable to elect a government based on a snapshot of public opinion, could we not also trust the numbers to reveal what people wanted on other issues??
Hmmm
I have to think that there is a difference between an election (everyone with the franchise is able to exercise is) and a poll (a few hundred or thousand hold the franchise for all. This (w)could lead to all kinds of manipulation by the poll owners (Mr. Kiwiblog being one of the of course,) with potentially horrendous impacts on society.
On-line voting on parliamentary bills could be an option in a few years’ time, when the technology is ubiquitous and everyone has been educated on their true role in democracy, and would turn us into a real democratic society (as opposed to one that elects a dictator every three years). However, until then, perhaps an Quarterly or even monthly, ‘plebiscite’ on issues to be dealt with in the coming parliamentary session is an option.
I like the quote though :- “There is no doubt that democracy is far from the ideal form of representation, however, it’s the best one we’ve managed so far!”
Incidentally, why do people keep referring to Parliament when they mean “The NZ House of Representatives”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)