The Myth of the Rational Voter

Louis Menand, in a great piece on voter irrationality from a few years back:

... after analyzing the results of surveys conducted over time, in which people tended to give different and randomly inconsistent answers to the same questions, Converse concluded that "very substantial portions of the public" hold opinions that are essentially meaningless-off-the-top-of-the-head responses to questions they have never thought about, derived from no underlying set of principles. These people might as well base their political choices on the weather. And, in fact, many of them do.

Findings about the influence of the weather on voter behavior are among the many surveys and studies that confirm Converse's sense of the inattention of the American electorate. In election years from 1952 to 2000, when people were asked whether they cared who won the Presidential election, between twenty-two and forty-four per cent answered "don't care" or "don't know." In 2000, eighteen per cent said that they decided which Presidential candidate to vote for only in the last two weeks of the campaign; five per cent, enough to swing most elections, decided the day they voted.

Seventy per cent of Americans cannot name their senators or their congressman. Forty-nine per cent believe that the President has the power to suspend the Constitution. Only about thirty per cent name an issue when they explain why they voted the way they did, and only a fifth hold consistent opinions on issues over time. Rephrasing poll questions reveals that many people don't understand the issues that they have just offered an opinion on. According to polls conducted in 1987 and 1989, for example, between twenty and twenty-five per cent of the public thinks that too little is being spent on welfare, and between sixty-three and sixty-five per cent feels that too little is being spent on assistance to the poor. And voters apparently do punish politicians for acts of God. In a paper written in 2004, the Princeton political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels estimate that "2.8 million people voted against Al Gore in 2000 because their states were too dry or too wet" as a consequence of that year's weather patterns. Achen and Bartels think that these voters cost Gore seven states, any one of which would have given him the election.

Or put another way:

(hat tip: Alex Tabarrok)

Comments

According to polls conducted in 1987 and 1989, for example, between twenty and twenty-five per cent of the public thinks that too little is being spent on welfare, and between sixty-three and sixty-five per cent feels that too little is being spent on assistance to the poor.

Sorry, but where exactly is the contradiction here? Surely government welfare programs aren't the ONLY way to spend money assisting the poor.

Posted by John | August 17, 2007 11:18 AM

OK, but which is more likely:

A) 40% of the public has considered the options and endorses a plan to increase non-welfare aid to the poor (but not welfare payments)

B) 40% of the public haven't given this much thought and will respond to whatever sounds the best

Posted by Dan Miller | August 17, 2007 11:45 AM

One ameliorating factor is the "two-step flow" in which well-informed voters will inform their friends (who have similar interests and values, but less knowledge) for whom they ought to vote. This is one of the reasons that the results from macro studies (eg Bartels' work on weather and shark attacks) are gloomy but not /as/ gloomy as you'd expect from methodologically individualistic approaches like pop quizzes on conlaw. While the two-step flow introduces its own distortions, it's probably a net gain for rationality.

Posted by Gabriel | August 17, 2007 12:18 PM

OK, but which is more likely:

A) 40% of the public has considered the options and endorses a plan to increase non-welfare aid to the poor (but not welfare payments)

B) 40% of the public haven't given this much thought and will respond to whatever sounds the best

Point taken. Menand, though, uses this as an example of a case where careful polling reveals that people "don't understand the issues that they have just offered an opinion on" - which hardly seems fair. I think this is an interesting example of how a certain liberal mindset leaves one unable to make obviously relevant distinctions.

Posted by John | August 17, 2007 12:21 PM

Chris Achen is my best friend's dad. That's really all I have to add to this discussion.

Posted by Ryan Bonneville | August 17, 2007 1:08 PM

Rationality is always overweighted by academics. Most human beings believe that their personal behavior is rational, while the behavior of others is commonly irrational. Politicians generally understand that they would not be in business if voters were rational and act accordingly.

Posted by Steven Donegal | August 17, 2007 2:05 PM

The polling companies have a vested interest in not revealing how ignorant much of the public is.

For example, I would have loved to have known what percentage of the American people in 2003 wanted to invade Iraq as revenge on Iraq for seizing American hostages in 1979. But no pollster has ever published figures on what percentage of the public confuses Iraq and Iran. It would make their stock in trade look less worth paying for.

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 17, 2007 2:35 PM

I think it's generally always been true that people behave this way, but I wonder whether this phenomenon has gotten worse over time. People often refer to the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and how few people would have the attention span to follow them nowadays. My understanding was that they were widely understood & debated at the time, but I don't know if that was really a broad-based phenomenon or just an educated elite one.

It seems that TV, in particular, accentuates this aspect of politics. Because it is so powerful at influencing perceptions, the political world focuses enormous amounts of time, energy, & money on the medium. This leads to a general overemphasis on style over substance. Written publications and radio are somewhat blunter tools for influencing perceptions, and words are a more intrinsic part of the medium than visual images. But, perhaps the differences aren't very significant compared to people's general lack of though.

Posted by Mike S. | August 17, 2007 3:47 PM

Those are some fairly trite and obvious observations, S Mike, but of course the ultimate "style over substance" candidate now sits in the White House. I suspect you weren't complaining about this sort of thing while you were voting for him, and you probably still think you made the right choices.

You were probably one of the people who thought Al Gore's sighs of frustration at Dumbya's gibberish were really, really important in the 2000 debate. You probably still think so.

Metaphysician, heal thyself.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 17, 2007 10:15 PM

If a few million people go into the voting booth and essentially flip a mental coin, does it matter? According to the law of large numbers, won't they just be a wash?

The real shame is that the social pressure to vote makes all these people waste their time on election day, when they could be doing something constructive.

Posted by anon/portly | August 18, 2007 3:25 AM

Those are some fairly trite and obvious observations

Gee, one never sees those in the comments section of a blog! I like being referred to as "trite" by someone who's screenname is MoeLarryAndJesus.

I suspect you weren't complaining about this sort of thing while you were voting for him, and you probably still think you made the right choices.

I voted for Gore in 2000, genius.

Posted by Mike S. | August 19, 2007 3:29 PM

Sorry to say. Caplan’s book is full of illogical and contradictory arguments, mangled terms, cultural prejudice, and a whole lot of other weaknesses. It’s also pretty scary when you really think about what he is arguing for. Like a lot of cloistered academics, he’s hermetically sealed inside his own thinking and theories, and totally unhinged from the real world... past and present. I won’t recap the whole list of objections here... but it’s on my site. (literalmayhem.com)

Posted by Martin | September 21, 2007 10:15 PM