3 ms·

If you have an obligation to vote, then it's an obligation to make an informed vote. If you haven't attempted to evaluate your decision carefully and can't make

If you have an obligation to vote, then it's an obligation to make an informed vote. If you haven't attempted to evaluate your decision carefully and can't make an informed vote, please don't vote. Informed voting > not voting > uninformed voting Greg Mankiw has a column on this: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/11/election-day-approaches.html http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/11/election-day-approach...

_delirium 16y ago
In competitive races I agree, but there are odd cases where voting uninformedly might be better than not voting, though you can always leave particular parts of the ballot blank. If your vote doesn't actually sway the race, then in effect you're only voting for your demographic to be taken more seriously in the next election's "likely voter" screen that pollsters use, which is probably in your interests to do (this is one reason the elderly get disproportionate weight in politics, because they vote at high rates).
mbreese 16y ago
This column was originally written in Oct 2000. I wonder if he still holds the same opinion. I think that the problem with assuming that the uninformed shouldn't vote is that you assume that all of the uninformed don't vote, or that the distribution is uniform. This is far from the case. It might be the case that we should encourage everyone to vote, so that all of the uninformed votes might cancel each other out.
- michaelkeenan 16y ago
  Bryan Caplan argues that in his field (economics), uninformed votes don't cancel each other out. The average opinions of the uninformed (non-economist laymen) differ consistently from the average opinions of the informed (professional economists): http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/06/bryan-caplan/the-myth-of-the-rational-voter/ http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/06/bryan-caplan/the-myth... I wouldn't be surprised if the same were true of other skills useful to high-quality voting, such as military strategy, education, criminology and history.
  - mbreese 16y ago
    I'm curious as to how an economics field alters perception (I know votes are scarce, economists study individual choice, etc... But votes technically hold no value). I'd be more interested in a polisci / pollster / statistician perspective. I'm also a little leery of anything coming out of the Cato Institute. If this was a published study, that would be different. Given that the author is a professor, I'm willing to give him a little slack, but I'd rather see the opinion peer-reviewed. I don't follow economics well enough to know of any contrarian points of view. The author's main point seems to be that just because some people can vote, doesn't mean that they should vote. What he doesn't address is why the noise from the uninformed doesn't cancel out. Or more accurately, why wouldn't more noise be better noise? He states that the errors compound, but he never really give a good reason why (at least in my skimming). I still maintain that the current distribution of uninformed voters isn't uniform. There was a study a while ago (but I can't remember the citation) that said that an increate in even uninformed opinions strengthened predictive power. So in this case more idiots were better idiots. I wish I remember what field this was in though...
    - michaelkeenan 16y ago
      > I'm also a little leery of anything coming out of the Cato Institute. The link is to Cato Unbound, where they host an essay and discussion by outsiders to the Cato Institute. The participants aren't just libertarians; Matthew Yglesias had an essay not too long ago. > I'd rather see the opinion peer-reviewed. It isn't formal peer review, but there are reaction essays here: http://www.cato-unbound.org/archives/november-2006/ http://www.cato-unbound.org/archives/november-2006/ > The author's main point seems to be that just because some people can vote, doesn't mean that they should vote. What he doesn't address is why the noise from the uninformed doesn't cancel out...(at least in my skimming). Caplan addresses it in the last three paragraphs under How Misconceptions Are Possible, but he's pressed for space in that essay. He wrote about book about this. You can also find his argument here (PDF link): http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Straight-Talk-About-Economic-Literacy.pdf http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Straight...
    - davidw 16y ago
jozo 16y ago
I'm not surprised he makes that argument. A higher voter turnout generally benefits the left, as the poor are less frequent voters. Everyone has the right to vote, informed or not, and I don't think anyone should undermine that right. There's always going to be someone making the argument that they are more informed. Also, the only acceptable way to show that you don't want to vote is to go and cast a blank or invalid vote.
dageroth 16y ago
Well, as the chance that the vote one casts is actually making a difference is so miniscule and the cost of informing yourself about the poltical agenda of parties rather high it is rational and utility maximising not to vote and to stay ignorant. The "curse" of rational ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance
brudgers 16y ago
>"Informed voting > not voting > uninformed voting" The idea that "the uninformed" should not vote is contrary to universal suffrage and has a long history of use for disenfranchisement. "Uninformed voting" is in the eye of the beholder (working definition: uninformed voters are those who both disagree with me and are outside my social group). One person's criteria for being informed may be awareness of specific proposals for complex policies, while another's might be the candidate's up or down stance on a single issue, and for another it might be party affiliation (noted on the ballot in most US jurisdictions). Conversely, a person can be highly informed and vote in a way which damages the community at large, e.g. a person may vote to reduce educational funding thereby lowering their taxes with the intent of using the savings to fund the production of child pornography. Today, vote as well as you are able.
- gojomo 16y ago
  The argument is not that the uninformed should be disenfranchised or in any way prohibited from voting. They should be allowed to vote. But, if someone has enough self-knowledge to recognize that they are relatively uninformed, on a single issue or the ballot as a whole, they should abstain from voting on those portions of the ballot. By doing so, they delegate the decision to more-informed people. The option to vote if they are later agitated or informed remains important -- but it doesn't have to exercised every time to serve its purpose of defending their interests. People moved to vote at the last minute by a speech about their 'obligation', and deciding based on a few fleeting impressions from the last wave of rhetoric, make the process more random and superficial. They are the people most affected by negative ads, or simpleminded sloganeering.
  - brudgers 16y ago
    The idea of a government based on delegation of authority to the most informed has its roots in antiquity. And although HN may be the first community to actually governed by a philosopher-king, its ability to scale has not been successfully demonstrated. The problem as I see it, is that believing oneself to be "relatively uninformed" does not make a person relatively uninformed (it may in fact lead them to actively acquire more information - i.e why Severs believes he is below average). Conversely, believing oneself to be well informed does not make one well informed, and may alas lead a person to stop seeking relevant information. Indeed it would not surprise me if the people most affected by "simpleminded sloganeering" tend to believe they are well informed. The problem with "people should" in a political context is that it can quickly become "people must" backed with the force of government, and any implementation of: "Informed voting > not voting > uninformed voting" requires disenfranchisement.
afterburner 16y ago
Ideally, sure, but in practice a little knowledge is often a dangerous thing, and people who think they know what they're talking about might have a seriously flawed understanding of the issues and their possible solutions. There are entire fake "think tanks" based on providing this flawed reasoning to those who don't question it enough. How to distinguish between "informed voter" and "brainwashed voter"?

_delirium 16y ago

In competitive races I agree, but there are odd cases where voting uninformedly might be better than not voting, though you can always leave particular parts of the ballot blank. If your vote doesn't actually sway the race, then in effect you're only voting for your demographic to be taken more seriously in the next election's "likely voter" screen that pollsters use, which is probably in your interests to do (this is one reason the elderly get disproportionate weight in politics, because they vote at high rates).

mbreese 16y ago

This column was originally written in Oct 2000. I wonder if he still holds the same opinion. I think that the problem with assuming that the uninformed shouldn't vote is that you assume that all of the uninformed don't vote, or that the distribution is uniform. This is far from the case. It might be the case that we should encourage everyone to vote, so that all of the uninformed votes might cancel each other out.

michaelkeenan 16y ago
Bryan Caplan argues that in his field (economics), uninformed votes don't cancel each other out. The average opinions of the uninformed (non-economist laymen) differ consistently from the average opinions of the informed (professional economists): http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/06/bryan-caplan/the-myth-of-the-rational-voter/ http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/06/bryan-caplan/the-myth... I wouldn't be surprised if the same were true of other skills useful to high-quality voting, such as military strategy, education, criminology and history.
- mbreese 16y ago
  I'm curious as to how an economics field alters perception (I know votes are scarce, economists study individual choice, etc... But votes technically hold no value). I'd be more interested in a polisci / pollster / statistician perspective. I'm also a little leery of anything coming out of the Cato Institute. If this was a published study, that would be different. Given that the author is a professor, I'm willing to give him a little slack, but I'd rather see the opinion peer-reviewed. I don't follow economics well enough to know of any contrarian points of view. The author's main point seems to be that just because some people can vote, doesn't mean that they should vote. What he doesn't address is why the noise from the uninformed doesn't cancel out. Or more accurately, why wouldn't more noise be better noise? He states that the errors compound, but he never really give a good reason why (at least in my skimming). I still maintain that the current distribution of uninformed voters isn't uniform. There was a study a while ago (but I can't remember the citation) that said that an increate in even uninformed opinions strengthened predictive power. So in this case more idiots were better idiots. I wish I remember what field this was in though...
  - michaelkeenan 16y ago
    > I'm also a little leery of anything coming out of the Cato Institute. The link is to Cato Unbound, where they host an essay and discussion by outsiders to the Cato Institute. The participants aren't just libertarians; Matthew Yglesias had an essay not too long ago. > I'd rather see the opinion peer-reviewed. It isn't formal peer review, but there are reaction essays here: http://www.cato-unbound.org/archives/november-2006/ http://www.cato-unbound.org/archives/november-2006/ > The author's main point seems to be that just because some people can vote, doesn't mean that they should vote. What he doesn't address is why the noise from the uninformed doesn't cancel out...(at least in my skimming). Caplan addresses it in the last three paragraphs under How Misconceptions Are Possible, but he's pressed for space in that essay. He wrote about book about this. You can also find his argument here (PDF link): http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Straight-Talk-About-Economic-Literacy.pdf http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Straight...
  - davidw 16y ago

jozo 16y ago

I'm not surprised he makes that argument. A higher voter turnout generally benefits the left, as the poor are less frequent voters. Everyone has the right to vote, informed or not, and I don't think anyone should undermine that right. There's always going to be someone making the argument that they are more informed. Also, the only acceptable way to show that you don't want to vote is to go and cast a blank or invalid vote.

dageroth 16y ago

Well, as the chance that the vote one casts is actually making a difference is so miniscule and the cost of informing yourself about the poltical agenda of parties rather high it is rational and utility maximising not to vote and to stay ignorant. The "curse" of rational ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance

brudgers 16y ago

>"Informed voting > not voting > uninformed voting" The idea that "the uninformed" should not vote is contrary to universal suffrage and has a long history of use for disenfranchisement. "Uninformed voting" is in the eye of the beholder (working definition: uninformed voters are those who both disagree with me and are outside my social group). One person's criteria for being informed may be awareness of specific proposals for complex policies, while another's might be the candidate's up or down stance on a single issue, and for another it might be party affiliation (noted on the ballot in most US jurisdictions). Conversely, a person can be highly informed and vote in a way which damages the community at large, e.g. a person may vote to reduce educational funding thereby lowering their taxes with the intent of using the savings to fund the production of child pornography. Today, vote as well as you are able.

gojomo 16y ago
The argument is not that the uninformed should be disenfranchised or in any way prohibited from voting. They should be allowed to vote. But, if someone has enough self-knowledge to recognize that they are relatively uninformed, on a single issue or the ballot as a whole, they should abstain from voting on those portions of the ballot. By doing so, they delegate the decision to more-informed people. The option to vote if they are later agitated or informed remains important -- but it doesn't have to exercised every time to serve its purpose of defending their interests. People moved to vote at the last minute by a speech about their 'obligation', and deciding based on a few fleeting impressions from the last wave of rhetoric, make the process more random and superficial. They are the people most affected by negative ads, or simpleminded sloganeering.
- brudgers 16y ago
  The idea of a government based on delegation of authority to the most informed has its roots in antiquity. And although HN may be the first community to actually governed by a philosopher-king, its ability to scale has not been successfully demonstrated. The problem as I see it, is that believing oneself to be "relatively uninformed" does not make a person relatively uninformed (it may in fact lead them to actively acquire more information - i.e why Severs believes he is below average). Conversely, believing oneself to be well informed does not make one well informed, and may alas lead a person to stop seeking relevant information. Indeed it would not surprise me if the people most affected by "simpleminded sloganeering" tend to believe they are well informed. The problem with "people should" in a political context is that it can quickly become "people must" backed with the force of government, and any implementation of: "Informed voting > not voting > uninformed voting" requires disenfranchisement.

afterburner 16y ago

Ideally, sure, but in practice a little knowledge is often a dangerous thing, and people who think they know what they're talking about might have a seriously flawed understanding of the issues and their possible solutions. There are entire fake "think tanks" based on providing this flawed reasoning to those who don't question it enough. How to distinguish between "informed voter" and "brainwashed voter"?