I am a very apolitical person and rarely think about politics. I read the news and have ideas but not necessarily solid opinions. So reading the review of Bryan Kaplan's "The Myth of the National Voter" on the New Yorker made me really think about politics for about 15 minutes. This book, I think is written for me and apparently the majority of America, who does not know who their state senators are, government's policies etc.
Bryan Kaplan is an economist who teaches at George Mason University who thinks that increased voter participation is not necessarily a good thing unlike we all were taught to believe. My vote makes a difference, I think? I mean my one vote, in reality, among millions of votes will virtually have no effect but if I don't vote, I am foregoing my right of freedom. So what does my vote mean in the big picture?
Well, as Kaplan bluntly puts it, most voters are not just ignorant or apolitical. They have their opinions but they are mostly wrong. Then they endorse bad policies which makes them worse off because democracy allows them to do what they want. Hmmm, harsh!
Here is where the voters deviate from the rational mind of an economist (this is not biased at all, considering he is an economist hehe) As the New Yorker quotes: "The typical noneconomist does not understand or appreciate the way markets work (and thus favors regulation and is suspicious of the profit motive), dislikes foreigners (and thus tends to be protectionist), equates prosperity with employment rather than with production (and thus overvalues the preservation of existing jobs), and usually thinks that economic conditions are getting worse (and thus favors government intervention in the economy)." So based on our votes, we demand a closed market regulated by the government. We do not think in economical terms but with our sentiment.
What I do not understand is, how he believes in the "Miracle of Aggregation" yet still think that the less we vote, the better off democracy will be? Miracle of Aggregation means that when each individual has partial information, somehow when public gathers all the partial data, we get close to perfect information. So, to me that means, all the partial information the public has will aggregate to choose the right party and individuals, no? Well apparently there is also a thing called "Tragedy of Commons" which means that to benefit from a common good, everyone will act selfishly and make everyone worse off (e.g. global warming, we all know it but increase our carbon footprint anyways). He claims that miracle of aggregation happens in regulated environments such as a stock market yet democracy is more like a commons, i.e. not regulated where everyone will act according to their self interest. I need to hear more about his rationale to call democracy a commons because as is, I think voting could be a miracle or a tragedy.
Well, Kaplan is certainly attacking the average voter and this definitely got my interest. I think he is saying that we should leave everything to the economists. I know an economist who would probably second that hehe. I think this will be the first political book that I will ever buy (I mean modern political book, leaving aside Aristotle and Plato). Sounds really provocative!
