No Free Lunch: Economics for a Fallen World: Third Edition, Revised

Chapter Fourteen: Decision-making in Democracy: Public Choice 329 Unfortunately, we find that many voters don’t make the most informed decisions on elections; in fact, despite many public service campaigns, citizens often refuse to vote. Polls often show that people don’t know many of their stands on important issues or even who their own member of Congress is. Are voters just ignorant? Well, yes! In economic terms, we say they are rationally ignorant . They are rationally ignorant because the costs to find out important details to make a more informed vote are higher than the benefits. Think about it this way. Let’s say your parents always ask you for your opinion on what movie you should rent for family movie night. Every time you tell them a suggestion, they never listen…and I mean really, never. But they keep asking you to give suggestions. Pretty soon you don’t even bother giving them suggestions (or at least not making much effort to find out what movies are available), since you know whether you make a good or bad choice doesn’t really matter—they’re going to pick the movie they want anyway. So however low the costs to find out what movies are available, the benefits are even less, since your parents won’t listen to you. You eventually will not put much effort into “voting” for the movie. The same reality is true for voting; when your vote or understanding of political positions has a negligible effect on an election or public policy, there is little incentive for you to vote or become politically informed. Of course there are some incentives; we make choices based on costs/benefits across many dimensions, not simply on whether your vote will determine the outcome of an election. You may have wanted to be part of the group that reelected the nation’s first African-American president, or you may enjoy wearing the “I Voted” button after Election Day, or you may enjoy being the person that everyone asks for your political opinion because you have well thought-out reasons. For you, paying attention to politics may be enjoyment and thus a benefit, not a cost. But for many Americans, the benefits of being an intelligent, active voter are less than the costs, and their decision to stay uninformed and not vote is rationally ignorant . In some cases, it’s worse than the fact that voters are rationally ignorant—they are in many cases rationally irrational. Economist Bryan Caplan argues that when an individual’s vote has no meaningful impact on the outcome, they are likely to indulge their irrational beliefs and vote in ways that actually are socially harmful. For example, almost no one would support the idea that at an individual level, if you are a marginal worker, a good strategy is for you to go and demand a raise from your boss. Yet many of the same people will vote in favor of politicians who demand an increase in the minimum wage (which impacts entry level/low skill workers). These voters will ignore the secondary consequences since their vote doesn’t matter anyway, but they can feel good about themselves because they stood beside those “less fortunate.” Whether rationally ignorant or rationally irrational (or in some cases, both), individual political choices may not lead to the best social outcome. Rational ignorance: Voters are said to be rationally ignorant when the costs of being educated on an issue exceed the benefits. Since the ability to influence a political outcome is very small for most Americans (the benefit of being politically informed), it is rational for them not to expend resources (costs) to become an informed voter.