2. Voting fails to correspond to rational models – biases and strategic voting
In the line of economic rationality, political analysis has tried to apply the market’s economic model to election processes. It soon became obvious that we are far from the ideal of rational voters: according to the rational choice theory, if people voted for who they wanted most, utility would be maximised1. But we humans push that rationality to a whole other level and try anticipating others’ behavior using what we call strategic voting. Voters seem to vote thinking they could change something, while our individual vote can rarely, if ever, tilt the balance: that is why we rarely vote for small parties. With strategic voting, our votes depend on the logical connections we make between our preferences, beliefs, and what we believe to be others’ preferences and beliefs – voting becomes a Bayesian game. Baron (2008)1 also explains that strategic voting is the ultimate proof that we do not vote according to our moral values.
Strategic voting may lead to consequences contrary to our own interest. According to Duverger’s law, small parties tend to be eliminated through two occurings: fusion and elimination. Elimination refers to the tendency of voters to eliminate small parties, believing they have no chance of winning, and fusion is a consequence to that: small
…show more content…
Fey demonstrates mathematically the possibility of a non Duvergian equilibrium (three party system), reminding that they remain unstable and that they would require close-to-perfect information. These voting equilibria build themselves upon preelection polls. They serve to inform the electorate about the viability of the candidates in the Bayesian game previously mentioned. Voters seem to make their decisions solely on their anticipations and inferences they can make about easily accessible information such as party
For instance, Menand writes, “The fraction of the electorates that responds to substantive political argument is hugely outweighed by the fraction that responds to slogans, misinformation...random personal association.” Mass voters mostly pursue the wrong or irrelevant information that are irrelevant to the election; thus lead them to vote for the candidates which they do not really want. Their choices mostly lack rationalities. Many voters who are slightly informative think that they are participating in a certain issue and considering the value of the candidates; yet most of them do not have adequate information and knowledge in understanding the meaning of political terms. Voters lack judgment on their government and candidates, their minds are easily being brainwashed by a small amount of people who has informative approaches in participating governmental issue, and affect their
Selb, Peter and Lachat, Romain. 2009. “The more, the better? Counterfactual Evidence on The Effect of Compulsory Voting on The Consistency of Party Choice.” European Journal of Political Research 5: 573-79.
Party is an inevitable feature of the democracy and it is defined as ‘an autonomous group of citizens having the purpose of making nominations and contesting elections in the hope of gaining control over governmental power through the capture of public offices and the organization of the government’ (Caramani, 2011, p.220). Parties are ubiquitous in modern political systems and they perform a number of functions, they are: coordination, contesting elections, recruitment, and representation (Caramani, 2011). Political parties are the product of the parliamentary and electoral game, and party systems reflect the social oppositions that characterize society when parties first appear (Coxall et al., 2011).
Though he is aware that these parties are likely to grow, he advises that “wise people” (Washington, 1796) will discourage it. He cautions that in promoting political parties the danger arises of one party seeking the upper hand and that it ignites animosity at the expense of the public.
Both parties will tend to be broad-based and attempt to target as many groups as possible: this is because any smaller parties will not stand a chance in competing in most districts, hence causing parties to consolidate in order to be viable (ACE Project, 2012). This analysis by the ACE Project shows how larger parties may tend to squeeze out smaller ones, and cause smaller parties to be excluded relative to their actual level in government, hindering their ability to act on a national stage, providing a normative basis for their exclusion in Canadian
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution states that, “Representatives…shall be apportioned among several states...according to their respective Numbers.” Apportionment is the mathematical process of dividing and allocating the four hundred and thirty five seats in the House of Representatives among the fifty states based on the population figures collected by the Census Bureau. This process, according to the Constitution, must be conducted “within every subsequent Term of ten Years.” Each of the fifty states is guaranteed one representative. The number of House of Representatives from each state fluctuates every ten years due to population deviation.
"Miller light and bud light…either way you end up with a mighty weak beer!" This is how Jim Hightower (a Texan populist speaker) described the choices that the U.S. electorate had in the 2000 elections. This insinuates that there is a clear lack of distinction between the parties. Along with numerous others, this is one of the reasons why the turnout is so low in the U.S. elections. In trying to explain the low figures at the U.S. elections, analysts have called American voters apathetic to indifferent to downright lazy. I disagree that the 50% (in recent elections) of voters that fail to turnout to vote are lazy and that they have just reason not too. I will also show that the problem lies within the system itself in that the institutional arrangements, electoral and governmental, do not create an environment that is conducive to mass participation. I will address these main issues and several others that have an effect on voter participation. In doing so I will compare America to other established democracies.
Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt believe that voting in an election is seemingly ineffective, that the chances of you winning a lottery and actually affecting an election are very similar. This article I’m analyzing questions why we vote, and if voting is even worth your time.
Singh, S., & Judd, T. (2013). Compulsory Voting and the Dynamics of Partisan Identification. European Journal of Political research, 52(2), 188-211. Retrieved from http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/details.xqy?uri=/03044130/v52i0002/188_cvatdopi.xml
In the article “The Lottocracy,” the author Alexander Guerrero makes some bold assessments toward the current system of electing representatives. Alexander Guerrero reflects on the general attitude people have toward voting, analyzes why people vote the way they do and how the system is flawed. It is easy to fall into a state of thinking that one vote does not make a difference when one considers that there is little difference between the candidates. Ethos, pathos, and logos are present throughout the article to persuade and convince the audience of how flawed the current system. Guerrero appeals to his reader’s sense of logic by using examples of statistical analysis that outlines the demographics of those who are currently serving in elected
During the second half of the past century the notion that, political science should be treated as a science became extremely popular among academics specially in the United States. One of the most prominent exposers of this school of thought was Anthony Downs, who developed a theorem to explain in a rather economic sense, how and why voters behave in a certain way when it comes to voting. Downs did not only applied his theory to the way voters behave, he also used it to explain the way political parties align themselves when it comes to elections in a two and a multiparty system nevertheless this essay will analyze Downs’ claims about a two party system only. This essay argues that the Downs’ model has proven to be accurate in many cases throughout history, nevertheless it makes a series of assumptions about voters and parties that can not be considered realistic neither in 1957, when he published his paper An Economic Theory of Political Action in Democracy in 1957 nor in 2013. This essay also acknowledges that fact that this theory might help to explain how parties behave but it is by no means the only explanation. Furthermore this essay will prove that it is a multiplicity of factors rather than an economic theory what can help us understand why parties behave the way they do. In order to support the argument previously stated this essay will state and critically analyze a number of Downs assumptions, then his theory will be outlined. Then it will carefully consider how effective it has been at predicting the way in which parties align themselves by examining the behavior of political parties during general elections in different countries.
There are two ways to get rid of the causes of factions, or political parties. The first way of removing these causes is to destroy the liberty essential to their existence. The second way to get rid of the causes is to give everyone the exact same o...
The median voter is the voter closest to the center on an issue. If determined properly, half of the population holds a position to the left of this determined median voter and half to the right. According to the Median Voter Theorem, the median voter in a majority-rule election will be decisive so long as voters have single-peaked preferences. The theorem implicates that candidates who are successful in winning elections are those who are able to capture the vote of the median voter. If two candidates campaign against each other, they are each forced to take the political p...
The Rational-Activist Model in which voters use elections as a policy expression. Individual citizens are expected to be informed politically, involved, rational, and above all, active (pg 19). This model puts a burden on citizens who are expected to be informed and vote accordingly.
Plurality voting and winner-take-all rules directly undermine any chance of a third party victory, leading to the perpetual existence of a two-party political system. With winner-take-all election rules making any third party victory far from possible, the two major parties can shift their identity early on in the election to align better with the concerns of the general public that may be expressed from third party support. Third parties do not pose much of a threat to the two major parties due to their inability to carry a state through electoral votes. Any large desire for policy change will likely provoke a major party critical realignment before it leads to any third party victory. The two major parties will likely, based off of historical patterns, bring forth a candidate whose campaign is unique to the nation-wide concerns, leading to a shift in overall voting