6 ms·

Comments like this sadden me. There is a field called political science. There are lots of researchers in that field publishing in journals, attending conferen

Comments like this sadden me. There is a field called political science. There are lots of researchers in that field publishing in journals, attending conferences, writing books, etc. And they've actually come up with some interesting results. In particular: voters do not make voting decisions based primarily on issues. In fact, there's some evidence that the causation often goes the other way. Any model that starts with the assumption that voters choose candidates based on issue matching starts with fail. Why should I be shoehorned? I am a gnostic, against excessive off-shoring, pro-choice, against gun banning and so on. It's a curious mix. Yet, I have to choose between two packages. Because the nature of political parties that can function in any society is heavily dependent on the institutional structure of the government. Again, this is a question that actual political scientists have researched and answered.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
voters do not make voting decisions based primarily on issues. In fact, there's some evidence that the causation often goes the other way. Interesting, I'd like to read more about this. Can you point me to something (less than book-length) that would tell me more? (I'm familiar with The Myth of the Rational Voter thing, but it sounds like you're going even a step farther than that)
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  I can't find any direct links, but I'd suggest Robin Hanson's blog (overcomingbias.com). His hypothesis is that most political/voting activity is done primarily for the purposes of a sense of identity and signalling. He discusses this in a number of posts. His basic thesis: I have no incentive to vote "correctly", since the odds of my vote affecting the result are nil. Therefore, it costs me almost nothing to vote D solely to show my friends what a caring intellectual I am, or to feel good about myself. My hypothesis is that this is the main reason scientists vote D (the caring/intellectual image).
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  One hilarious example of this effect at work can be found at http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_9_29_04.html http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_... -- the gist of it is that polling indicates that a decent number of Bush voters in 2004 believed that Bush held policy positions that he never held and in fact never claimed to have held. It is not that Bush lied to these voters about his issue preferences: they just liked him for other reasons and ascribed their own issue preferences to him. John Sides explains a related phenomena here: http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/08/me_talking_to_politico_on_2010.html http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/08/me_talking_to_politico_... whereby voters don't necessarily know much about most issues and end up adopting issue positions held by parties they trust. See the link towards the end of that piece. In general, there's been a ton of political science work on how election outcomes are largely determined by non-issue factors, like economic conditions. An electorate that voted based primarily on issues should have stable preferences that don't swing wildly based on the state of the economy.
Jun8 16y ago
Why does my ignorance "sadden" you? I would be first to point it out (although I wouldn't say that I'm more ignorant in these matters than the average intellectual) and one does not have to be omniscient either. You cite some very interesting results. If these are indeed so well known in the political science community, please post links to a few introductory papers.
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  I'm sorry; I shouldn't have written that. I'm sure you're a very smart person who is probably doing some fascinating work that I would totally dig if I knew about it. It is just that I see a lot of really basic political science ignorance around me, and it grates after a while. I mean, I'm sure you would never write something like "I think hand-washing causes AIDS!" because even if you didn't understand any biology, you probably get that there's a field called biology and that claims about biology really shouldn't be made unless one has some familiarity with the field and has spent some time studying, etc. It really bothers me that in the US at least, all of the media institutions that cover politics and policy literally act like the field of political science doesn't exist. And so everyone just makes up crap about questions that experts have actually studied empirically. But that's not your fault and I shouldn't have let my frustration with the ignorance of large powerful organizations leak cause me to express displeasure with you. Again, my apologies.
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    Don't want to beat a dead horse, but you said something that interested me. I know several Political Science majors. Do you view Political Science as a hard science, much like physics? Because from what you've said, you seem to feel that certain issues are settled. Or do you view it more like sociology, where there are competing theories and hard science is difficult (if not impossible) to perform? It sounds like you were saying that it should be treated as a hard science, but that can't be right, can it?
    - MichaelSalib 16y ago
      Do you view Political Science as a hard science, much like physics? Some days, I don't even view physics as a hard science ;-) More to the point, I think lots of political science involves open questions where people argue and there is no clear obvious answer. But that's the nature of any field: people don't argue over the obvious correct empirical stuff after a while. The issue is that the small fraction of political science that everyone agrees has been empirically settled are completely at odds with how Americans and American media discuss politics. I'm not saying that everyone should do whatever poli scientists say -- I'm saying that everyone should agree to the poly sci consensus on the few issues that have been well studied for which a huge consensus exists. That change alone would force us to rewrite 95% of political media coverage. Here's one example: http://www.slate.com/id/2256068/ http://www.slate.com/id/2256068/

CWuestefeld 16y ago

voters do not make voting decisions based primarily on issues. In fact, there's some evidence that the causation often goes the other way. Interesting, I'd like to read more about this. Can you point me to something (less than book-length) that would tell me more? (I'm familiar with The Myth of the Rational Voter thing, but it sounds like you're going even a step farther than that)

yummyfajitas 16y ago
I can't find any direct links, but I'd suggest Robin Hanson's blog (overcomingbias.com). His hypothesis is that most political/voting activity is done primarily for the purposes of a sense of identity and signalling. He discusses this in a number of posts. His basic thesis: I have no incentive to vote "correctly", since the odds of my vote affecting the result are nil. Therefore, it costs me almost nothing to vote D solely to show my friends what a caring intellectual I am, or to feel good about myself. My hypothesis is that this is the main reason scientists vote D (the caring/intellectual image).
MichaelSalib 16y ago
One hilarious example of this effect at work can be found at http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_9_29_04.html http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_... -- the gist of it is that polling indicates that a decent number of Bush voters in 2004 believed that Bush held policy positions that he never held and in fact never claimed to have held. It is not that Bush lied to these voters about his issue preferences: they just liked him for other reasons and ascribed their own issue preferences to him. John Sides explains a related phenomena here: http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/08/me_talking_to_politico_on_2010.html http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/08/me_talking_to_politico_... whereby voters don't necessarily know much about most issues and end up adopting issue positions held by parties they trust. See the link towards the end of that piece. In general, there's been a ton of political science work on how election outcomes are largely determined by non-issue factors, like economic conditions. An electorate that voted based primarily on issues should have stable preferences that don't swing wildly based on the state of the economy.

Jun8 16y ago

Why does my ignorance "sadden" you? I would be first to point it out (although I wouldn't say that I'm more ignorant in these matters than the average intellectual) and one does not have to be omniscient either. You cite some very interesting results. If these are indeed so well known in the political science community, please post links to a few introductory papers.

MichaelSalib 16y ago
I'm sorry; I shouldn't have written that. I'm sure you're a very smart person who is probably doing some fascinating work that I would totally dig if I knew about it. It is just that I see a lot of really basic political science ignorance around me, and it grates after a while. I mean, I'm sure you would never write something like "I think hand-washing causes AIDS!" because even if you didn't understand any biology, you probably get that there's a field called biology and that claims about biology really shouldn't be made unless one has some familiarity with the field and has spent some time studying, etc. It really bothers me that in the US at least, all of the media institutions that cover politics and policy literally act like the field of political science doesn't exist. And so everyone just makes up crap about questions that experts have actually studied empirically. But that's not your fault and I shouldn't have let my frustration with the ignorance of large powerful organizations leak cause me to express displeasure with you. Again, my apologies.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  Don't want to beat a dead horse, but you said something that interested me. I know several Political Science majors. Do you view Political Science as a hard science, much like physics? Because from what you've said, you seem to feel that certain issues are settled. Or do you view it more like sociology, where there are competing theories and hard science is difficult (if not impossible) to perform? It sounds like you were saying that it should be treated as a hard science, but that can't be right, can it?
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    Do you view Political Science as a hard science, much like physics? Some days, I don't even view physics as a hard science ;-) More to the point, I think lots of political science involves open questions where people argue and there is no clear obvious answer. But that's the nature of any field: people don't argue over the obvious correct empirical stuff after a while. The issue is that the small fraction of political science that everyone agrees has been empirically settled are completely at odds with how Americans and American media discuss politics. I'm not saying that everyone should do whatever poli scientists say -- I'm saying that everyone should agree to the poly sci consensus on the few issues that have been well studied for which a huge consensus exists. That change alone would force us to rewrite 95% of political media coverage. Here's one example: http://www.slate.com/id/2256068/ http://www.slate.com/id/2256068/