4 ms·
Did you read the article? There is whole section (3) on why simply having different preferences does not explain irrationality in politics.
by aylons 11y ago
Did you read the article? There is whole section (3) on why simply having different preferences does not explain irrationality in politics.
- dreamdu5t 11y agoVoter preferences affect votes - not political platforms. Political platforms espoused by candidates are reflective of the candidates preferences - not the voters.
- michaelkeenan 11y agoI think that isn't correct, because if it were ever correct, the first candidate willing to choose their platform based on what most appeals to voters would win. I think that has already occurred, and politics is dominated by politicians who adjust their positions to whatever will appeal to voters.
- hibikir 11y agoIt's more complicated than that. They adjust their position to whatever will lead to the most votes, but that often will include things that will not appeal to voters, but will appeal to donors that then will then provide resources to appeal to voters in another issue. In areas that do not sway many votes, we might as well have an oligarchy: A lot of gain to a few often defeats a small loss to the many, even if the total loss actually exceeds the total gain. Then, whether a group can lobby for regulation depends on a variety of predictable factors. It's the whole reason right to work legislation destroys unions. This is not new theory. The Logic of Collective Action by Olson covered this 50 years ago.
- oldmanjay 11y agoI never hit the section that satisfactorily explained that there is irrationality. I just found a lot of circular logic and bare assertion.