Election 2024: Voter Ignorance

Voters may be ignorant, but they are not stupid

GEORGE NOGA
MAY 12, 2024

This post continues my analysis of the 2024 election. Most voters don’t know our form of government, wrongly believing it to be a democracy rather than a constitutional republic. This explains why they also misunderstand the Electoral College and the makeup of the Senate. They don’t grasp the dangers inherent in a pure democracy and fail to understand why the will of a bare majority cannot be instantly actualized.

The founders didn’t see voter ignorance as a problem because the federal government had little power over the lives of citizens. Politics was mostly local and voters often knew the candidates personally or, at a minimum, knew firsthand of their reputation. Furthermore, voting was limited to a small cohort of educated white male landowners. Under federalism, senators were not elected; they were appointed by states.

Everything has changed. Government at all levels exercises enormous power over our lives; it accounts for nearly 40% of GDP versus 5% in the early years of the republic. Senators are now elected directly and few voters have any firsthand knowledge of the candidates. There is universal suffrage and issues have become much more complex.

Just how serious of a problem is voter ignorance? Is it problematic that voters spend much more time comparison shopping for a new TV than on candidates and issues? Such voters are behaving rationally because their decision about a TV makes an immediate and significant difference in their lives – in terms of both cost and quality. In contrast, the chance their vote will make any difference is infinitesimal.

Just because voters may be ignorant about the candidates and issues does not mean they are stupid or irrational. Should voters spend countess hours studying the intricacies of foreign trade, immigration and tax policy? There are several ways voters behave in an erudite manner despite being grossly underinformed or misinformed.

Voters rely on political parties and endorsements. Our two major political parties have well defined and long established philosophies of governance. A liberal voter will gravitate toward one party, a conservative voter toward another.
Issues and Media inform voters. Those who rank abortion as the most important issue will vote one way; those who favor limited government, another.
Candidates go to great lengths to define themselves and also their opponents. Even though this process is hackneyed, those who vote based on candidates, rather than parties or issues, have ample basis to decide.
Voters recognize and act on serious problems. When the US is beset with critical problems – social, economic or geopolitical – many voters will vote out those perceived to be responsible regardless of political party.
Peace and prosperity are rewarded. This is the flip side to #4 above. Voters reward success – again, regardless of party. They reward those who make their lives better.
All else being equal, voters will choose an incumbent over a newbie. They adhere to the old maxim – better the fool that you know than the devil you don’t.
Voters reject prolonged one party rule. Even low information voters viscerally grasp one party rule results in complacency and corruption. Since FDR, only Reagan/Bush won three consecutive elections. No party has won four straight (except reconstruction and FDR) since beginning in 1801 with Jefferson.
People vote with their feet. Currently, we are seeing this writ large as voters are fleeing blue states en mass and moving to red states.

As shown above, even no-information voters usually behave rationally according to their established beliefs and interests. The problem is their beliefs are based on a flawed understanding of the relationship between man and the state. They believe in more government and less liberty instead of more liberty and less government.

© 2024 George Noga
More Liberty – Less Government, Post Office Box 916381
Longwood, FL 32791-6381, Email: mllg@cfl.rr.com

Most voters are ignorant of the issues and even about basic political facts.
What are the implications of massive voter ignorance for our republic?

Voter Ignorance – A Startling Perspective

By: George Noga – November 13, 2016

The election is history; whoever won was elected by voters ignorant of the issues and about our government. Most voters don’t even know our form of government, incorrectly believing it is a democracy and not a constitutional republic. Voters are ignorant of the identity of the vice president, who controls Congress, the branches of government, taxation and spending. Candidates shamelessly exploit this ignorance.

The founders didn’t see voter ignorance as a problem because government had little power over peoples’ lives; politics was mostly local; and voting was limited to a small cohort of educated white male landowners. With federalism, states appointed senators. All this has changed with universal suffrage and vastly more complexity. Just how big a problem is voter ignorance? Does it doom democracy or, at least, argue for changes? Is it a serious concern voters spend more time planning a vacation than on the issues?

The answers may surprise you. Voters may be ignorant but they’re not stupid. Should a surgeon spend countless hours learning about foreign trade, immigration and tax policy? The ignorant voter, who spends many hours comparison shopping for a new television rather than learning the issues and the candidates, actually behaves rationally because his decision on the TV makes an immediate and significant difference in his life, whereas the chance his vote will make any difference is infinitesimal.

Just because voters are grossly underinformed and/or misinformed does not mean they always fail to act rationally. There are four ways voters evince erudite behavior.

1. Voters recognize and act on serious problems: When the nation is in the midst of social upheaval, beset with security issues and/or the economy is in a prolonged tailspin, voters invariably will vote out those perceived responsible. Even ignorant voters punish incumbents when there is clear-cut government failure.

2. Prolonged one party rule is rejected: Even low information voters viscerally grasp that incumbency leads to complacency and corruption. Prior to 2016 only Reagan/Bush (since FDR) won 3 consecutive elections. No party won 4 straight (excluding only the civil war era and FDR) since 1801, beginning with Jefferson.

3. Peace and prosperity are rewarded: Just as voters react to serious problems by voting out the perps, they also reward success – particularly in achieving peace and prosperity – at least for a time but not for 3 or 4 presidential terms.

4. People vote with their feet. Under our federal system, people can and do vote with their feet, moving from one jurisdiction to another. Just as with the TV example, people analyze, rationally and non politically, where to live because it has a large, immediate and direct impact on their lives. That explains why there is a shortage of moving vans in California and a corresponding glut in Texas.

Surprisingly, perhaps startlingly, massive voter ignorance is not an uber-serious problem. Democracy (including constitutional republics) is not perfect, but what system is better? Even ignorant voters can and do trump demographics, money and special interests. And being ignorant does not always equate to being irrational.

Ignorant voters almost certainly will vote for change in 2020 if the economy is torpid with no prospect of improvement and if America is beset with chronic and serious problems, not the least of which is Obamacare. They will vote for change if we are in the midst of prolonged one party rule and if we have neither peace nor prosperity.

Note to readers: I have been besieged with requests to write an election postmortem. During January 2017 I will provide same. Also as Obama leaves office, I will publish a retrospective on the Obama presidency – that is one post not to be missed and I hope one of the best ever.

The next post on November 20 is our special Thanksgiving edition.