The problem with democracy is rational ignorance and the problem of collective action—the famous example is the sugar subsidy in the United States. Using toy numbers, one might suggest that the average American pays $1 more per year for sugar because of those policies. By simple multiplication, that means the policy is worth ~ $300M to the sugar industry.
Why do situations like this persist?
1) I’d spend more organizing the group to end these policies than I’d ever save on sugar (the problem of collective action)
2) Even taking the time to learn about the problem is a waste for the average individual (rational ignorance).
Forcing people to vote doesn’t solve these problems, it just forces people to make a decision when they would admit they don’t have enough information to make the decision that truly reflects their preferences.
Never voting is probably the wrong answer because being predictably irrelevant to a decision is not the way to influence the decision in one’s favor. But decision-making when decision-makers lack the resources to effectively consider the issues is not a very tractable problem. Consider the example of the local politicians who change their names (a) to famous names, or (b) to appear earlier on the list of names on the ballot.
Forcing people to vote doesn’t solve these problems, it just forces people to make a decision when they would admit they don’t have enough information to make the decision that truly reflects their preferences.
Placing constitutional limitations on the power of government might be a better solution. “No subsidies for anyone” seems more stable than arguing over each specific subsidy.
“No subsidies for anyone” seems more stable than arguing over each specific subsidy.
It’s more stable, but hard to define, let alone implement. All government spending benefits somebody—and usually there are un-obvious beneficiaries. For example, road construction helps the construction business and also those who use the roads and those who own property near the road. So you can’t really put “no subsidies” in the Constitution in a way that’s judicially or politically enforceable, at least if you want to maintain any of the sort of government services that society assumes will be there.
The problem with democracy is rational ignorance and the problem of collective action—the famous example is the sugar subsidy in the United States. Using toy numbers, one might suggest that the average American pays $1 more per year for sugar because of those policies. By simple multiplication, that means the policy is worth ~ $300M to the sugar industry.
Why do situations like this persist?
1) I’d spend more organizing the group to end these policies than I’d ever save on sugar (the problem of collective action)
2) Even taking the time to learn about the problem is a waste for the average individual (rational ignorance).
Forcing people to vote doesn’t solve these problems, it just forces people to make a decision when they would admit they don’t have enough information to make the decision that truly reflects their preferences.
Never voting is probably the wrong answer because being predictably irrelevant to a decision is not the way to influence the decision in one’s favor. But decision-making when decision-makers lack the resources to effectively consider the issues is not a very tractable problem. Consider the example of the local politicians who change their names (a) to famous names, or (b) to appear earlier on the list of names on the ballot.
Placing constitutional limitations on the power of government might be a better solution. “No subsidies for anyone” seems more stable than arguing over each specific subsidy.
It’s more stable, but hard to define, let alone implement. All government spending benefits somebody—and usually there are un-obvious beneficiaries. For example, road construction helps the construction business and also those who use the roads and those who own property near the road. So you can’t really put “no subsidies” in the Constitution in a way that’s judicially or politically enforceable, at least if you want to maintain any of the sort of government services that society assumes will be there.