We the Sheeple: A New Freakonomics Podcast

(Photo: Vox Efx)

Our latest Freakonomics Radio episode is called “We the Sheeple.” (You can download/subscribe at iTunes, get the RSS feed, listen via the media player above, or read the transcript below.)  The gist: politicians tell voters exactly what they want to hear, even when it makes no sense — which is pretty much all the time.

With the Presidential election finally almost here, this is the last of our politically themed podcasts for a while. We’ve previously looked at how much the President really matters (updated here); whether campaign spending is as influential as people think; why people bother to vote (related Times column here); whether we tell the truth in polls; and whether we should consider importing the British tradition of Prime Minister’s Questions.

“We the Sheeple” features Bryan Caplan, the economist-author of The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies. You might have read or heard from Caplan in other Freakonomics venues, including “The Economist’s Guide to Parenting,” in which he discussed another of his books, Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids.

Caplan is, to put it gently, not a fan of our current political system. At he puts it in the podcast:

CAPLAN: You know, if you’re a successful politician, you know you don’t succeed by figuring out what’s really going on in the world and trying to explain it to people. You need to find out what people what to hear and then tell it to them. That’s what you see in debates. That’s what you see voters, successful politicians instinctively are trying to read people, trying to read their faces, what does this person want me to say to him, and that’s how they win.

Caplan also shares with us a letter he received from a Virginia state senator after The Myth of the Rational Voter was published. The senator wanted to thank Caplan for “confirming by your research that my ideas about the stupidity of voters is a valid thought”:

In the podcast you’ll also hear Steve Levitt talk about what he sees as the biggest upside of voting:

LEVITT: I think the reason most people vote, and the reason I occasionally vote is that it’s fun. It’s fun to vote, it’s expressive, and it’s a way to say the kind of person you are, and it’s a way to be able to say when something goes wrong when the opponent wins, “well I voted against that fool.” Or when something goes right when you voted for a guy to tell your grandchildren, “well I voted for that president.” So there’s nothing wrong with voting. [But] I think you can tell whether someone’s smart of not smart by their reasons for voting.

Levitt also tells us what he thinks of the idea of compulsory voting, as practiced in Australia and other places. FWIW, we just received an e-mail on this topic from an Australian reader named Andrew Mannion:

There is a sense that it’s a waste for those who have no interest in politics, although for most of us, voting is just a Saturday morning chore (all our elections are held on Saturdays) to be done with before watching the football or cricket. There is an upside though: with compulsory voting, there’s no need for political parties to spend big dollars on getting people out to vote. Here, that’s guaranteed. So what money is spent – and there’s far less of that here – can be spent on selling policies.

And finally, below is a list of the music that you’ll hear in this episode. David Herman is our engineer and among his many skills is an excellent taste and feel for the music that elevates our podcast above the mere chatter of stationary people. From now on, we’ll try to list the music for all episodes.

“We the Sheeple” Music Credits:

Song Title

Artist

 Album

Witching Hour Blues

Glenn Crytzer and his Syncopators

Harlem Mad

It’s About Time

Ruby Velle & The Soulphonics

It’s About Time

Things I Like to Do

Lord Echo   

Things I Like To Do

Agenda

Ruby Velle & The Soulphonics

It’s About Time

Audio Transcript

 

 

[AUDIO OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA AND GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY]

 

[MUSIC: Glenn Crytzer and his Syncopators - Witching Hour Blues]

 

Stephen DUBNER: Bryan, do you vote in presidential elections?

 

Bryan CAPLAN: I confess that I do not.

 

DUBNER: Why not?

 

CAPLAN: To me, anyone who can actually make it through the system has views that are so repellent to me, and what they say seems to be so contrary to common sense and common decency I just couldn’t bear to really identify with either of them.

 

DUBNER: Okay, so Bryan Caplan is not what a political pollster would call a “likely voter.” Not by a long shot. This can best be explained by the fact that Caplan is – yes – an economist. He teaches at George Mason University. Caplan has iconoclastic thoughts about a lot of things. He’s the kind of guy who’ll tell you that just about everything you think -- about voting, about parenting, about higher education -- is wrong.

 

CAPLAN: Honestly, if I just listen to any speech that any successful politician gives, it just seems like it’s so unfair, and it’s so untruthful. It’s like every sentence, can you fact check this sentence? Is this sentence actually factually correct? It’s like, no not really. It’s just a very unfair, and just appealing to people’s emotions, and I have to say, I really object to it. 

 

[PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AUDIO]

 

CAPLAN: I almost never actually listen to politicians. I’ll sometimes read transcripts. I find the transcripts less emotionally aversive than actually listening to them say their words. And when I read those transcripts -- no matter what the party of the person is -- I just think ‘I would give you a C in my economics class.’ This is just not acceptable for a person to be saying, it’s just so wrong.

 

[PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AUDIO]

 

[THEME]

 

ANNOUCNER: From WNYC and APM, American Public Media: This is Freakonomics Radio, the podcast that explores the hidden side of everything. Here’s your host, Stephen Dubner.

 

[MUSIC: Ruby Velle and The Soulphonics - It’s About Time]

 

DUBNER: Before the last presidential election, in 2008 when Barack Obama beat John McCain, Bryan Caplan published a book called The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies.

 

CAPLAN: The background assumption is this: everyone understands why dictatorships choose bad policies, there’s some awful jerk at the head of a country running it like it’s his own personal piggy bank. The puzzle though is why democracies would choose bad policies in a similar way. So in other words, the question is: everyone can agree that dictatorships choose bad policies; it’s no big intellectual puzzle as to why that would happen. But the idea that democracies, which are run by the people, or by the people elected by the people, would also make mistakes, is the puzzle. So you can think about the right way to read the title is, ‘why even democracies choose bad policies.’

 

DUBNER: The cover of Caplan’s book shows a flock of sheep, standing up like humans in a sort of military formation, ready to follow… someone. We the Sheeple.

 

CAPLAN: Right, so I’m really going against two different baseline wisdoms. One is with the public, just the idea that if a majority of Americans think something is a good idea then it’s right. You can see this in almost any presidential debate where someone will say ‘the American public wants this.’ And the last thing the other guy is going to say is, ‘well it’s true the American public does want it, but the American public is mistaken for the following reasons…’  You never want to be the politician saying that. The idea that if something is popular, it’s a good idea is quite a widespread in public opinion. At the same time, I also wanted to argue against the view that’s very common in economics and political science, which is that even if there’s a lot of ignorance in the public, you know voters are factually mistaken on a lot of issues, nevertheless it all balances out. So that on average, if the public thinks something is a good idea, then it really is a good idea.

 

DUBNER: Consider one topic that just about everyone cares about during the upcoming election: unemployment – or, really, employment. This issue is at the core of both the  Obama and Romney campaigns. The argument is over how the Obama White House has done in creating jobs. But as Bryan Caplan points out, not all jobs are created equal. Some of them are what he calls “make-work” jobs, and that feeds a “make-work bias.”

 

CAPLAN: I mean, make-work bias is the view that you should judge the performance of an economy based on unemployment rather than production, which especially during recession is a totally natural view. But once again, if you step back and realize, well, suppose we had thought this way in the 19th century, someone comes up with new tractors, new fertilizers, new ways of growing food. Someone else says wait a second, this is going to put farmers out of work, we should stop them, we should ban them. You know these innovations that sound good because they create more food may be bad because they’re going to destroy jobs. If we listened to those people we would still be farmers. We would still be hungry because they weren’t growing enough food then. Since we didn’t listen to people like this, we had a huge increase in food production. We did have a large decrease in employment in agriculture, but those people and their descendants just found something else to do. Which again, is so unsatisfying to hear, because at the time you want to say, okay, well tell us specifically what will they do instead of agriculture, which is what mankind’s been doing for thousands of years. And the answer really is when you’re in a period of change it’s very hard to say what it’s going to be. All you can do is say, well, there’s going to be something. The labor’s valuable; someone will figure it out.

 

DUBNER: Well, Bryan, how much of the rational voter idea is pegged simply to voting your pocketbook? In other words, voting for the candidate whose policies, or at least the policies that he promises, most closely align with your own economic interests?

 

CAPLAN: So there are actually two separate issues here. So one of them is how clearly or unclearly people see the world. The other one is how selfishly or unselfishly they vote. A person could be very rational, but totally unselfish. A person could first of all carefully understand the world and then vote on the basis of what he thinks is best for society. A person of course could be the opposite. A person could be very confused but still voting for what he thinks will advance his selfish interests. What I do in the book is -- first of all I clear some rubble away -- I go over all the evidence on voter motivation showing that despite what a lot of people think, voters are shockingly unselfish. Your individual interests have very little to do with how you vote, very little to do with your views on particular issues. In general it’s not true that rich people are Republican, poor people are Democrats. So there’s a very slight tendency that way, but it’s nothing like the picture people have of the all rich people vote Republican, all poor people vote Democrat.

 

DUBNER: So that sounds kind of wonderful, yes?

 

CAPLAN: So far so good. That actually does make democracy sound better. Here’s the problem, though. Even though it does look like people really are voting for what they believe to be good for their society, they actually seem to know very little about that and, in fact, have a lot of very mistaken views about how to advance their interests. And I say that’s actually probably the worst possible case. The worst possible thing is to have people who have good motives but bad understanding because then there’s a lot of agreement and consensus about what we ought to be doing. The problem is just that what we think we ought to be doing is often ineffective or counterproductive.

 

[MUSIC: Ruby Velle and The Soulphonics - It’s About Time]

 

DUBNER: All right, so in terms of this year’s presidential election, pick a plank, any plank from each candidate’s economic platform. And give me an Obama plank, and give me a Romney plank. And talk about how good that policy is from an economic perspective, and then talk about its viability as a voting appeal.

 

CAPLAN: I’d be perfectly happy if you wanted to just give me a couple.

DUBNER: Sure, so let’s see. So President Obama has talked a lot about financial inequality, but also access to education let’s say, right? So he has made moves toward, and talked about making more moves toward, making college more affordable in more ways toward more people. Talk to me about that idea as a piece of economic policy and then talk to me about it as a good piece of voter bait.

 

CAPLAN: All right, so in terms economic policy, it’s not at all clear that this is a good idea, because we already have an enormously high dropout rate, especially for marginal students. Most of, or at least a lot of the payoff from going to college comes from finishing. And yet, over the last decade or so we’ve had a large rise of the number of people who start going to college, but the fraction that actually finishes has been very flat. So it seems quite likely in a way that this is just going to encourage a lot of people to waste a couple of years of life and get very little show for it. And yet, what I just said is not anything you’d ever want to tell voters. You certainly don’t want to get in front of a national audience and say, you know, I think too many people are going to college. A lot of people aren’t very serious. You know that’s just the fact, a lot of people aren’t meant for college. That sounds terrible.

 

DUBNER: And therefore, campaigning on the idea of sending more people to college is a great thing to campaign on.

CAPLAN: That sounds great. And of course we’re going to pay for more of the stuff sounds good. I mean, who wants to pay for the stuff. Right? And again it’s not just a selfish matter of I don’t want to pay for my kid. No one should have to pay! Wouldn’t that be great if no one had to pay?

 

DUBNER: All right, let’s take something from Governor Romney’s campaign. Let’s say it’s a tax issue. Let’s say that the Romney camp describes President Obama’s forward-looking tax policy as wanting to raise taxes on the highest earners, whereas Governor Romney would argue, and has argued, that that would be a mistake because it would disincentivize small businesses, and maybe large. And that there comes a certain point at which raising taxes rather than, or at the expense of cutting spending is counterproductive. How does that rank as an economically sound or unsound issue in your view, and how does it rank again, as, again, voter bait?

 

CAPLAN: That one’s kind of funny, because if you take a look at voters’ views on government spending, they’re literally contradictory. Voters in general favor lower spending overall, but for virtually every category of spending they want to spend more. So this is the kind of thing where if  you say it right almost anything can be good, if you say it wrong almost anything can be bad. When a politician says we need to cut spending, that is a popular appeal. The only problem is if someone says cut which kind of spending? Oh, let’s cut the waste. Can you identify the waste specifically, is there something that it actually is? You know that’s the problem. I mean, I would say that in general, Republicans try to tap into the general public desire for lower spending. They also try to very carefully tap in to the public’s resistance to cutting any particular kind of spending. So even though Republicans know very well that to really cut spending you’ve got to cut entitlements, you know, you’ve got to get Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid under control. Those are really the fast-growing areas of spending. But Republications are very carefully electorally not to name any of those because people are going to say wait, when I said cut spending, I didn’t mean cut any of the spending we like, which are basically all of them, except for foreign aid.

 

[MUSIC: Lord Echo - Things I Like to Do]

 

DUBNER: Coming up: my Freakonomics partner Steve Levitt talks about his voting history.

 

Steven LEVITT: I voted for Obama because I wanted to tell my grandchildren that I voted for Obama. And I thought that he would be the greatest president in history.

DUBNER: And?
 

LEVITT: I don’t think I’m going to bother voting this election.

ANNOUCNER: From WNYC and APM, American Public Media: This is Freakonomics Radio. Here’s your host, Stephen Dubner.

 

[MUSIC: Glenn Crytzer and his Syncopators - Witching Hour Blues]

 

DUBNER: Today on Freakonomics Radio we’re talking with economist Bryan Caplan, author of The Myth of the Rational Voter. He is not a huge fan of our current political system.

 

CAPLAN: If you’re a successful politician, you know you don’t succeed by figuring out what’s really going on in the world and trying to explain it to people. You need to find out what people want to hear and then tell it to them. Successful politicians instinctively are trying to read people, trying to read their faces, what does this person want me to say to him, and that’s how they win. Economists often look down on politicians and sort of mock them for being incompetent. I have a very different view. I think they’re extremely competent, it’s just they’re competent in a skill that economists don’t appreciate. They are people who win these incredibly competitive races to get a job that thousands of people would love to have, maybe millions of people would love to have. They have some incredible skills, it’s just their skills are not figuring out what’s really going on, or deciphering the best research around. Their skill is finding out what the public wants to hear and saying it to them in a way that’s emotionally compelling. 

 

DUBNER: So what bothers you more, that electoral candidates give the people what the people want -- or seem to want -- or that people who seem to want what they seem to want?

 

CAPLAN: That’s a very good question. Because ultimately the source of the problem is that people are so confused in their views of how the economy and other things work, which means that a politician who wants to win has to actually say these things. People have often said that politics has been the religion of the 20th century, and I think there’s a lot to that. In the same way that people get attached to a religion, they get attached to a political party. And once you’re part of it, you don’t want to hear someone talking about the horrible things that your religion or your party did in the past. You don’t want to go and say the people who now run it might be morally questionable, or hypocritical, or just wrong. Instead, you want to find a sense of community with a bunch of like-minded people. You all tell each other how wonderful you are and try to defeat your Satanic enemies who for some strange reason continue to dispute the truth that you have obtained.

[MUSIC: Ruby Velle and the Soulphonics - Agenda]

 

[MAN ON THE STREET TAPE]

 

DUBNER: People are always talking about the dispiritingly low voter turnout rate in the U.S. -- it’s less than 60 percent for a Presidential election. But after hearing Bryan Caplan talk for a while, you may ask yourself a different but equally dispiriting question: why is voter turnout even that high? I asked my Freakonomics friend and co-author Steve Levitt about this recently. He’s an economist at the University of Chicago.

 

DUBNER: So Levitt, how can you in your life, when you wander around, tell the difference between a smart person and a not-so-smart person?

 

LEVITT: Well, one good indicator of a person who’s not so smart is if they vote in a presidential election because they think their vote might actually decide which candidate wins.

DUBNER: Well that sound anti-American doesn’t it? That’s a terrible heresy you’re saying aloud.

LEVITT: Well, you know us, Dubner, we try to tell the truth. And the fact is that there has never been and there never will be a vote cast in a presidential election that could possibly be decisive. And one thing we see for sure, and we saw it in the Gore versus Bush election is that if it’s even within thousands of votes it’s not the votes themselves that decide the election, because nobody can figure out how many votes were cast. It’s the courts that always decide, the judges that always decide. It’s virtually impossible that any vote you cast in a national election could ever actually be decisive.

DUBNER: But don’t you think that people pretty much know that by now, people are aware of the difference between electoral versus popular vote. And you know, if you live in a state like I do, New York, or you do, Illinois, it’s kind of a forgone conclusion. So let’s assume that most people kind of think about that and know that, what drives them to do it anyway? I mean, people complain about low voter turnout, it sounds like you’re saying it’s strange it’s even as high as it is, around fifty percent.

LEVITT: Yeah, so I think you’re right that most people understand that their vote doesn’t really matter for the election, which is exactly why I said it’s only the not so smart people who vote because they’re actually going to influence the election. I think the reason most people vote, and the reason I occasionally vote is that it’s fun. It’s fun to vote, it’s expressive, and it’s a way to say the kind of person you are, and it’s a way to be able to say when something goes wrong when the opponent wins, “well I voted against that fool.” Or when something goes right when you voted for a guy to tell your grandchildren, “well I voted for that president.” So there’s nothing wrong with voting. I think you can tell whether someone’s smart of not so smart by their reasons for voting.
 

DUBNER: Why did you vote for Obama for president in 2008?

LEVITT: So I voted for Obama because I wanted to tell my grandchildren that I voted for Obama. And I thought that he would be the greatest president in history.

DUBNER: And?

LEVITT: I don’t think I’m going to bother voting this election.

DUBNER: So Levitt, some places around the world have essentially mandatory voting. Australia for one, I don’t really know too many of the details about it. But as a citizen you must vote. And there are different incentives for voting, and penalties for not voting. Do you like that idea for here?

LEVITT: I think it’s totally backwards. Why would you want people who aren’t interested in voting, why would you want to compel them? These are either people who are uninterested in voting, uninformed, indifferent between the candidates. Those are exactly the wrong people to try to get to vote. If anything I think you want to go in the other direction and find ways to let people who care a lot vote repeatedly. That’s really more in the spirit of trying to get to the right answer. That way you get the people who have the strongest convictions acting most aggressively to express those convictions.

[MUSIC: Ruby Velle and the Soulphonics - Agenda]

 

[MAN ON THE STREET TAPE]

 

[CREDITS]

 

 

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

 

COMMENTS: 68

View All Comments »
  1. David Mint says:

    We recently pulled some data on the non-voters in American presidential elections since 1828, the first year that vot turnout data was readily available. What we found about non participation we eye opening. Depending upon how one views a non-vote, it could be said that only one President has been chosen by a simple majority of the American people in its entire history: Eisenhower in 1952. You can see our numbers and analysis at the following link: http://davidmint.com/2012/10/23/the-silent-majority-why-no-one-will-win-the-2012-presidential-election/

    Thanks again for sharing some insight into the voters mind and all the best!

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
    • Bryan says:

      I’ve heard that single votes don’t count..and I accept that as much as I accept a raindrop can’t flood a city.. But oceans and rivers are just multitudes of raindrops?.. On an Election Day what if the vote is actually zero for each candidate? Isn’t there a law of big numbers or something that changes things when larrrrrge groups get together.. To gamble, vote, flood things,..etc?

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
  2. Jacob E says:

    It’s awesome that you guys are listing the music for the episodes. David Herman does an excellent job with the music and the audio.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  3. Adam says:

    When I hear that economists don’t vote because their vote doesn’t matter, it strikes me as being similar to that other joke about the economists walking by the $20 bill on the ground saying “that can’t be a $20 bill or someone would have already picked it up.” They treat themselves as separate from the system. They tell us we should think more like them, but if we did no one would vote. A vote for the lesser of 2 evils registers some input into the US political process while no vote is a vote for the system to continue as it is. Is that what they want?

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 14
    • Nathan the economist says:

      ” They tell us we should think more like them, but if we did no one would vote.”

      That’s wrong. As less people voted, individual votes would become more powerful, so economists would then vote.

      And the joke is a joke. Part of economics is recognizing outliers. Theory does not take precedence over a physical observation as clear and straightforward as seeing a $20 bill, and economists would pick it up. Therefore, that attack is incorrect, as well.

      “no vote is a vote for the system to continue as it is.”

      Actually, in this context, no vote is a decision–or a “vote”- to save the time it would take to vote. Whether one voted or not would make no difference to the government, so why take the time?

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3
      • Adam says:

        I wonder what percentage of the electorate is not voting because their vote doesn’t matter. Enough to have changed the result of several elections that I’ve participated in I’m sure.

        Perhaps they each feel some satisfaction for saving some time and leaving the rest of us with the stupid government we deserve.

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
      • Jason says:

        Adam notes: “I wonder what percentage of the electorate is not voting because their vote doesn’t matter. Enough to have changed the result of several elections that I’ve participated in I’m sure.”

        However, if the non-voters would be choosing by flipping a coin, their vote wouldn’t matter. The question is – how many non-voters are actually informed consumers who simply choose not to consume?

        My conclusion to this issue may differ from others here, however. I think we need to do everything possible to create an informed electorate with access to the polls. Have early voting everywhere, and move election day to Saturday. Continue to improve upon voter guides that are easily accessible. And (at least in California, and probably elsewhere), decrease the amount of garbage that weighs down the ballot. Propositions are for critical issues that need public input, not just for legislation that you are disappointed didn’t get through your elected legislature!

        Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  4. Travis says:

    This is a great talk. But to me it seems like a double edge sword, to use a cliche. While both politicians lip service should be repugnant to any educated and critical person, there are still good ideological reasons to vote. Some people think the government should enforce their religious norms, for example, and others think the government should not. That seems to be a perfectly good ideological reason to vote, despite what the candidates also say.

    Which is why it often comes down to voting for the lesser two evils. Though, an extra problem is introduced when the politician saying what you consider to be more nonsensical is the one in the party which you line up better ideologically.

    I’ve always been torn on the issue of “voter turnout.” On one hand, I think that encouraging people who are uninformed, easily misguided, and generally under analytical are ill equipped to be making group decisions for the welfare of the nation.

    On the other hand, it seems like often times the first people to opt out are the people who are the most educated, most analytical, and most well informed. Because they feel cold to both candidates, they are more likely to opt out, which can ultimately make the decision even worse, by leaving in the hands of a group that is even more bereft of information or critical thought.

    Is there any solution?

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
    • JAM says:

      I’ll take a stab at a solution.

      The issue is that this is a market place of ideas and we, the people, need to vote (demand) in order to shift what is being supplied.

      The problem is that people are not being very discriminating in how they give their vote.

      The politician (supplier) is pitching themselves with the fervor of a late night infomercial, whose promises are just as likely to evaporate upon delivery.

      In order to avoid the bait and switch normally being supplied, people need to vote for a package that promises to deliver little more than unbiased simplicity and transparency in providing only basic public goods (defense, police, fire protection, etc.) and addressing difficult to tackle externalities (pollution).

      As long as people keep voting for some magician who promises a cavalcade of goodies upon election (at someone else’s expense), we are doomed to a repeat of this sad show over and over again.

      And don’t be afraid to vote 3rd party. This may signal the two main hucksters (Dems and GOP) to change their show.

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
    • tmeier says:

      The only solution I can think of it to add more tiers rather than direct voting. Have sort of caucuses of a hundred voters select a representative to vote for them. Have a hundred of these meet in a super caucus and select an elector. The electors then meet to select a person to fill the office. If selected, duty to serve should be compulsory, like jury duty. No campaigning, no politicians in the sense we now have them. Electors are not paid and anyone caught taking bribes get life in prison.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
  5. James says:

    I have to wonder about the claim that “politicians tell voters exactly what they want to hear”. Quite apart from the fact that I can’t instantly recall any mainstream politician ever telling me anything I wanted to hear, it seems pretty obvious that voters are divided into groups with vastly different opinions. Thus if some candidate – say RIchard Mourdock – tells one group exactly what they want to hear, that creates considerable reaction from those who don’t want to hear it.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
    • Emil Lime says:

      Exactly. Competing tribes of voters who vote exactly the same way for 100′s of years. What are the names of these factions. What are the names of the parties who are voted for by these factions. When have factions changed parties. Which factions are growing in influence. Michael Lind claims that the Republican and Democratic parties switched names in the 60′s. due to the invitation of the African American Faction into the Democratic Party. So, that makes Roosevelt a representative of what is currently called the Republican Party. That’s what needs to be uncovered. That is why nobody understands politics in the US anymore.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
      • TexCIS says:

        Hogwash. It was the Democrat party that wouldn’t allow African Americans to vote. Case in point is Condalezza Rice’s father. He wanted to sign up to vote and the Democrats wouldn’t let him, so he went to the Republican party and signed up. That’s why she’s a Republican to this day. That’s also why Senator Robert Byrd was in the Democrat party, and in the KKK, and remained in the Democrat party. The Democrat party was, and still is, a party that looks at people as groups based on skin color, or sex, or union membership . . . and not as individuals with minds of their own. Just look at what they do to members of those groups who “go off the reservation” or “plantation.”

        Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9
    • mike says:

      Politicians, especially those running for president or congress use modern technology to determine which voter segment is likely to be the swing vote, then package their message for them.

      If you suggest this doesn’t happen, then you haven’t been watching Romney’s courting of the tea party “I’m a severe conservative” then his disavowal of all he stood for once the election got closer to the finish. Which is exactly what one of his aids said he would do. “He’ll etch-a-sketch it…”.

      They use the same kind of tools that advertisers use, focus groups, polling, psychologists and statistics. They find out what group they need to target, because there are many who will vote for them no matter what they say or do or screw up. Those are the true believers. The ones they target, as has been stated on various shows, is the low information voter.

      I think my country should enact random selection representation. Pick names out of a list of all citizens aged 18 – 80, tell them they just won a job for four years three months. There would be a three month overlap where the last guy trains the new guy. There would be a method of recall by vote should a certain number of people sign a petition asking for it. Their jobs would be held whenever possible with the employer being compensated for the inconvenience, training and search for the replacement hire, and the chosen representatives given a set amount of money equaling his salary plus 20 to 40 percent. These can be hard jobs if you care and do it properly.

      Naturally people would have the opportunity to turn down the opportunity. We would get a representative group of people. They would be less subject to corruption. They might even tell people what they need to hear, rather then what they think they want to hear.

      Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
      • James says:

        Package, yes, but not change. As, to continue the example, Romney’s reaction to Mourdock’s comments. Anyone who pays attention would bet that Romney actually agrees with Mourdock, but though he can try to package his views a little differently, he won’t come out and say “Hey, I was wrong, women should control their own bodies” in order to pick up a bigger share of the vote, regardles of whether or not that statement would be a lie.

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. tmeier says:

    Many years ago I determined the real value of democracy is in suppression by the illusion of consensus. This is much better than suppression by force in most ways.

    But really the ‘stupid voter’ is just another face of the ‘stupid consumer’, pandering to the lowest common denominator is the key to success in anything dealing with people en mass be it politics, art, entertainment or mundane supply. Even if you isolate a demographic which is supposed to be elite you still need to pander to the basic instincts or lose market to someone who will. Politicians are not an exception by any means. Several great statesmen have remarked how filling a chamber with people who would otherwise be thoughtful, intelligent and even insightful, turns them into idiots. So the senator should really not have said ‘they’ but ‘we’.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
  7. Mike Hunter says:

    So Mr. Caplan isn’t a fan of our current system. Fair enough. Can he tell us what changes could realistically be made to create a better system? It’s unproductive to bitch and moan about something being broken and then not even attempt to find a way to fix it.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
    • Jonathan Vaage says:

      There are many quality voting reforms out there (amongst several poor quality reforms). My favorite is Score Voting (aka Range Voting). Essentially voters give each candidate a score out of some range and the candidate with the highest cumulative score wins office. This should effectively achieve what Levitt mentions at the end of the segment about teasing out more nuanced preferences from voters. This also reduces problems with the spoiler effect and the two party control of front runners. Unfortunately, and despite it’s straight for

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    • Jonathan Vaage says:

      There are many quality voting reforms out there (amongst several poor quality reforms). My favorite is Score Voting (aka Range Voting). Essentially voters give each candidate a score out of some range and the candidate with the highest cumulative score wins office. This should effectively achieve what Levitt mentions at the end of the segment about teasing out more nuanced preferences from voters. This also reduces problems with the spoiler effect and the two party control of front runners. Unfortunately, and despite it’s straight forwardness, it has not yet been implemented in any governmental bodies due to it’s relative recent emergence as a promising voting reform.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. Emil Lime says:

    Man, you guys lost me on this one. I contemplate never listening again. Try this. Interview Michael Lind and ask him about the United States Political Calculus. It far and away explains more about politics in the US than anything you statistic logic junkies come up with.

    People hate politicians because we make THEM hate US. But that said, who on earth has time to study issue after issue and come up with a rational logical decision on what’s best. Nobody. Including POTUS. What we’re voting for is a manager. And that has to do with personality. And the only thing people know about managers is judging the managers they have against the uber manager, which is POTUS. It’s not about micro managing policy. Sea changes in policy happen when they happen. Civil Rights, it happened eventually. It always takes longer than we’d like, but it eventually happens.

    Seriously Levitt, are you really not going to vote? You voted for Obama and now your disillusioned? That is bull up and down. JUST the composition of the Supreme Court should make you vote this time. Alone. That is the real issue that people should think about. Social Justice! care anything about it? You are NOT for strict construction of the constitution. You take pragmatist positions all the time. You’re logic causes ambivalent cynicism. Stop teaching people that.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 12
    • Mike says:

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      Disliked! Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 17
    • Adam says:

      Thanks, Emil Lime. I also find the excuses for not voting deplorable. The politicians make arguments with obvious flaws, as Brian Kaplan, interviewed on the podcast, notes? Yes, they do, but if you choose not to vote on that basis then you are no better than the people who think those arguments make sense. Sure it’d have been nice if the President, or Mitt Romney, had, for example, answered the debate question about gasoline by saying there was very little a president could do about gas prices in the short to medium term. Nonetheless, there is ample information out there, even some you could have gleaned from the debates, that suggests the different policies the candidates will actually pursue if elected. Can’t one use that to decide who to vote for?

      As for Levitt’s suggestion that people who think their vote will make a difference are dumb, I look at it this way. Clearly voting itself makes a difference. Turnout by Democrats in 2008 helped Obama and other Democrats get elected. Turnout by Republicans in 2010 helped Republicans get elected. So voting makes a difference. Therefore my voting is part of what makes a difference. The fact that my individual vote will not sway the election is irrelevant. Finally, I would say, compare the society where everyone thought as these nonvoting economists versus the society where nearly everyone voted. Even though in the latter case there would be a lot of ill-informed people voting, which society is likely to be more inclusive or fair? Which society would Kaplan and Levitt prefer to live in? I think that, and not because it’s fun, is why most people vote.

      Levitt also ignores the idea that people who intend to vote will tend to become more informed, with attendant benefits.

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1