Ottawa's spectator sport
Pierre Lemieux - Monday,12 December 2005
Western Standard
A few days after the publication of the Gomery report, the Liberals were again taking the lead over the Conservatives, according to two public opinion polls. What's most surprising is that these results seem surprising to many people.
Short-term public opinion is volatile. The phenomenon of contradictory public opinion, or "cycling," has been known, and mathematically investigated, since the work of the Marquis de Condorcet, in the 18th century. But deeper factors are probably at play. To see this, we need to make a little detour in "public choice" economics--the economic analysis of politics.
An individual voter has no discernable impact on political outcomes. In an election, his vote will only count if there would have been a tie without it. With 15 million voters, the probability of a tie can be calculated as lower than the inverse of the number of elementary particles in the universe. In political debates more generally, an elector, as opposed to a politician or a pundit, also has a zero impact.
Political analysts tend to overlook the implications of this observation. Citizens will tend to remain "rationally apathetic." And those who do participate in politics have no incentive to gather and analyze information; they will thus remain "rationally ignorant." The rational individual will spend more time obtaining information about a car purchase than about the political program or team to support. Thus, it is not surprising that many voters will rapidly forget politicians' lies, broken promises and petty sins.
But more can be said if we consider what has been called "the voting paradox": Why do so many people vote (61 per cent of registered voters in the last federal election) instead of doing something more productive or fun with their time? A vast theoretical and empirical literature has been devoted to this question.
One reason is the same as why an individual cheers or boos at a hockey game, even if he cannot hope to significantly influence the level of partisan noise: to entertain himself, to have fun, to be part of the crowd. This is why election campaigns are run on empty slogans and superficial images. If there is a field where misleading advertising abounds, this is it.
Now, to be part of the crowd in this country--that is, east of Manitoba--means historically to be a Liberal supporter. Not only is it more fun to cheer and boo the same teams as your family and friends do, but "information cascades" are also at play: if most people you know are Liberal sympathizers, you economize on information by trusting their judgment.
The Gomery story is that a few Liberals have been caught in a scandal involving one fifth of one per cent of the federal budget. The typical voter booed as everybody booed. But the boos died when the game started again. When the pollsters phoned in the second week of November, our voter mainly remembered that he usually favours the Liberals. He has a good chance of doing the same when, and if, he goes to the voting booth.
There is another reason why a rational elector may decide to participate in the political process and vote, even if he realizes that his participation will have no more impact on the result than his purchase of tomatoes on tomato prices. The elector may think that one side is morally better than the other. Some people don't vote just to follow the crowd and have fun, but to express their conception of what is right. Call them "moral voters."
Where are the moral voters? If they are disappearing, or if most of them are on the side of the Liberals and the NDP, the Conservative party may well be doomed. On the other hand, if there are moral voters who are looking for an alternative to the soft tyranny that has been gripping this country over the past three or four decades, the Conservative party might have a chance. But bitching about Adscam will not be sufficient; everybody knows that any party in power long enough will have apparatchiks who go astray. The Conservative party would have to propose a real alternative, consistent with the Canadian tradition of liberty.
Pierre Lemieux - Monday,12 December 2005
Western Standard
A few days after the publication of the Gomery report, the Liberals were again taking the lead over the Conservatives, according to two public opinion polls. What's most surprising is that these results seem surprising to many people.
Short-term public opinion is volatile. The phenomenon of contradictory public opinion, or "cycling," has been known, and mathematically investigated, since the work of the Marquis de Condorcet, in the 18th century. But deeper factors are probably at play. To see this, we need to make a little detour in "public choice" economics--the economic analysis of politics.
An individual voter has no discernable impact on political outcomes. In an election, his vote will only count if there would have been a tie without it. With 15 million voters, the probability of a tie can be calculated as lower than the inverse of the number of elementary particles in the universe. In political debates more generally, an elector, as opposed to a politician or a pundit, also has a zero impact.
Political analysts tend to overlook the implications of this observation. Citizens will tend to remain "rationally apathetic." And those who do participate in politics have no incentive to gather and analyze information; they will thus remain "rationally ignorant." The rational individual will spend more time obtaining information about a car purchase than about the political program or team to support. Thus, it is not surprising that many voters will rapidly forget politicians' lies, broken promises and petty sins.
But more can be said if we consider what has been called "the voting paradox": Why do so many people vote (61 per cent of registered voters in the last federal election) instead of doing something more productive or fun with their time? A vast theoretical and empirical literature has been devoted to this question.
One reason is the same as why an individual cheers or boos at a hockey game, even if he cannot hope to significantly influence the level of partisan noise: to entertain himself, to have fun, to be part of the crowd. This is why election campaigns are run on empty slogans and superficial images. If there is a field where misleading advertising abounds, this is it.
Now, to be part of the crowd in this country--that is, east of Manitoba--means historically to be a Liberal supporter. Not only is it more fun to cheer and boo the same teams as your family and friends do, but "information cascades" are also at play: if most people you know are Liberal sympathizers, you economize on information by trusting their judgment.
The Gomery story is that a few Liberals have been caught in a scandal involving one fifth of one per cent of the federal budget. The typical voter booed as everybody booed. But the boos died when the game started again. When the pollsters phoned in the second week of November, our voter mainly remembered that he usually favours the Liberals. He has a good chance of doing the same when, and if, he goes to the voting booth.
There is another reason why a rational elector may decide to participate in the political process and vote, even if he realizes that his participation will have no more impact on the result than his purchase of tomatoes on tomato prices. The elector may think that one side is morally better than the other. Some people don't vote just to follow the crowd and have fun, but to express their conception of what is right. Call them "moral voters."
Where are the moral voters? If they are disappearing, or if most of them are on the side of the Liberals and the NDP, the Conservative party may well be doomed. On the other hand, if there are moral voters who are looking for an alternative to the soft tyranny that has been gripping this country over the past three or four decades, the Conservative party might have a chance. But bitching about Adscam will not be sufficient; everybody knows that any party in power long enough will have apparatchiks who go astray. The Conservative party would have to propose a real alternative, consistent with the Canadian tradition of liberty.
Comment