The Social Costs of Getting Out the Vote

Bryan,

You state - "So if you think that politicians are pandering to the lowest common denominator, think again. With 100% turnout, the denominator could and would get lower still."

I think with 100 % turnout - the denominator does not tend to get lower. It may actually be higher under a non-compulsory turnout.

I would assume in a non-compulsory turnout – the extremists are more inclined to vote in line with their beliefs, while the moderates (or non-politically inclined) tend not to participate. This leads to a situation where the agenda may be hijacked by the more extreme portion of the population as they are the ones more likely to be emotionally invested in voting and affecting the outcome.

I recently moved to Australia, which has compulsory voting from a country where voting was not compulsory and turnout was limited to around 55-60 %. What I have observed is that the mainstream political agenda tends to conform to the large ‘middle moderate’ portion of the population.

I think if compulsory population was revoked – the political agenda would become more extremist.

Obviously, my disputable underlying assumption is that an extremist political agenda is less optimum than a moderate one.

Sean

While I'll agree that we need to raise the competency of our voters, most people will still vote in their own personal interest. More competent voters, the more voters would realize what policies are in their own personal interests that are not in the general welfare. The executive of many 'green' firms would continue to push for 'green' initiatives. The executive whose business is supporting regulatory compliance efforts would still push to broaden those regulations. The academic still will support those policies that are in his/her interest. The only thing you've done is give more people the ability to figure out how they can partake of the real welfare given out by our government.

Encourage people who don't understand the issues to stay home.

Probable outcome is that those who are already more critical toward their knowledge accept your advice, especially if they are libertarians - and those who are not critical, especially if they incline to fascists position will ridicule this idea, just like any libertarian idea and vote passionately. Net result will be - worse quality of the voters.

Intelligent people do not make history, because they are in doubt.

Voters without adequate knowledge might be voting less often because they are enlightened about their own ignorance.

Bryan,
I disagree with your cheer libertarian perspective, but you're on the side of the angels on this issue. Glad to see you getting some more deserved mileage out it. Unfortunately it may be a harder case to make with Obama or McCain in office. If every there as a perfect moment to make your case, it has been the past few years, after the 2004 election.

[Comment edited for inappropriate language.--Econlib Ed.]

It may be true that people are trying to vote for the general interest. But isn't it also true that voters' appraisal of the general interest is biased by self-interest? Think about the stylized fact that in less-developed countries, governments subsidize manufacturing, where in developed countries, they subsidize farming. It fits with the Mancur Olson "Logic of Collective Action" idea that smaller groups are better able to organize, and "concentrated benefits and diffuse costs." Or again, think about how weirdly generous the government is to seniors, not a very needy group by and large but one with high voter turnout. And also how many indirect subsidies go to the middle class, e.g. housing loan assistance through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Again, doesn't it suggest that the median voter has inordinate power in the system?

It's not rational for someone to vote their self-interest. One vote has zero effect on the election outcome, so voters might as well give themselves brownie points in their own minds by doing what they think is the right thing. But, it's also not in voters' interest to think too critically about how their own life may put them in the wrong-- say, by driving a polluting car, or by living off handouts taken from the taxes of others less needy than themselves.

The hypothesis that voters are better-informed than non-voters seems to be demonstrably false. Just one look at the clowns elected to our Congress is enough to seriously question the competence of voters.

So I shudder to think that our politicians have been elected by the best-informed voters.

But again, people are certainly not quite rational as voters, but they seem to be even less rational as consumers - 60% overweighted Americans seems to be strong suggestion.

So, if rationality is an argument, shouldn't it be actually an argument for regulation and against free market?

I agree both with Bryan and Kurbla. Many voters are idiots, and it's better that the idiots stay home. But the real idiots don't know that they're idiots. It's actually the more logical and well educated people who will be skeptical of their understanding and stay home.

You're right that Stossel-cloning would be a giant step toward popularizing libertarian ideas.

Stossel may be the most effective libertarian communicator to date, with a keen ability to communicate complex (and simple) libertarian ideas to the layman. While it may be straw manish, and even propaganda-like at times, he effectively knocks over straw men that libertarians struggle to knock down in the eyes of laymen. Winning over the masses has seldom been a libertarian strategy for change.

I am less worried about those who do not know anything than those who know too much that is not true. (Paraphrased from Mark Twain) However, I think you are on the right track.