3 ms·

> There's also the inescapable incentive conflict of 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. I don't think that situation is THAT common, given

> There's also the inescapable incentive conflict of 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. I don't think that situation is THAT common, given that usually the majority of people has the same problems, usually economic. Biggest exception would be immigration, since immigrants are generally in lower numbers, especially the ones that can actually vote.

hackerlight 4y ago
The problem is that voters outside of that issue will be mostly apathetic due to information asymmetries + finite bandwidth to care about issues + active disinformation and propaganda by lobby groups. So much the case that you don't even need a majority to get negative sum policies passed. The same dynamic happens with sufficiently determined minorities. Here's a few examples. Agricultural subsidies, carried interest loophole, local planning laws, lack of action on global warming. The cases of majority rule leading to negative sum policies are probably more rare than the impact of determined minorities. Although I can think of Black voter disenfranchisement and immigration laws off the top of my head. It's partly a money in politics issue, but it's also deeper than that. Farmers will actively vote out anyone who wants to take away their subsidies. Non-farmers don't care enough one way or the other, because the cost is dilute. You don't need direct money in politics for that mechanism to play out.