2. Why are rational ignorance and rational irrationality more prevalent in political than in market decision-making? Given their prevalence in politics, what implications do you think this has for how political institutions should be designed or the frequency and number of elections in a democratic society? Rational ignorance occurs when it is in the best interest of rational people to stay uninformed. This occurs because information is costly to gather, process, and act on. These costs associated with becoming informed outweigh the benefits of the information. According to Huemer, rational irrationality occurs when it is “instrumentally rational to be epistemically irrational.” In other words, the cost of finding the truth often outweighs the benefit of forming true beliefs. In politics, …show more content…
Therefore, political institutions should be constructed to mitigate their effects. Huemer contends that we should try to understand political irrationality and adopt good practices such as identifying cases in which we are likely to be biased, collecting information from more than one side, and recognizing that other people may feed us bias information. However, it is unrealistic to expect voters or politicians to practice these behaviors on their own. I argue we should construct political institutions that do not allow for bias to disrupt the political system by using Buchanan’s generality principle. In a majoritarian political system, as the generality of policy decisions increases, the influence of irrational biases decreases. Thus, general interest is promoted above individual beliefs that are ignorant or unfounded. For example, Buchanan argues for uniform tax rates rather than a tax code with many exceptions. This way, individual beliefs about what conditions deserve more tax relief are not factored
“ … we… need an alternative to winner-take-all majoritarianism… with Nikolas’s help… I call [this] the ‘principle of taking turns.’ [It] does better than simple majority rule… it accommodates the values of self-government, fairness, deliberation, compromise, and consensus that lie at the heart of the democratic ideal” (para.
He also explains that the public succumbs to the stereotypes that support the government: news, law enforcement, and politicians. Lippmann then points out that the “visible government” is the aftermath of the assumptions made by the public about democracy. Lippmann argues, “the substance of the argument is that democracy in its original form never seriously faced the problem which arises because the pictures inside people’s heads do not automatically correspond with the world outside” (Lippmann 19). This argument makes sense because the interpretation of symbols and fictions, as well as propaganda and stereotypes, differentiates person to person. As democracy has developed, the pictures inside people’s minds have pushed it from its original form. Concurrently, the people in power have the same distorted picture in their head. He continues this evaluation by saying, “for in each of these innumerable centers of authority there are parties, and these parties are themselves hierarchies with their roots in classes, sections, cliques and clans; and within these are the individual politicians, each the personal center of a web of connection and memory and fear and hope” (Lippmann 13). This places the public at risk because their leaders are acting with a pre-disposition to certain stereotypes and the effect trickles down to plague the
Buckler, Justin. "Population Equality And The Imposition Of Risk On Partisan Gerrymandering." Case Western Reserve Law Review 62.4 (2012): 1037-1055. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
The majoritarian electoral system could be divided into plurality or an absolute majority (Norris, 1997: 299). Plurality aims to create a manufactured majority via exaggerating the share of seats for the leading party to an effective working majority for the gove...
Probably one of the biggest economic debates is rationality. Whether a decision is rational or irrational. If I were to make a rational decision, it would most benefit me over all of the other choices I could have chosen from. This is how Professor Henry Spearman solves the case of the murder. All of the suspects are proven guilty or innocent based off of the decisions they make. If it is a rational decision, then the suspect is thought of as innocent. If it is an irrational decision, then the suspect is thought of as
In discussing the problems surrounding the issue of factionalism in American society, James Madison concluded in Federalist #10, "The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects." (Federalist Papers 1999, 75) In many ways, the nature of American politics has revolved around this question since our country's birth. What is the relationship between parties and government? Should the party serve as an intermediary between the populace and government, and how should a government respond to disparate ideas espoused by the factions inherent to a free society. This paper will discuss the political evolution that has revolved around this question, examining different "regimes" and how they attempted to reconcile the relationship between power and the corresponding role of the people. Beginning with the Federalists themselves, we will trace this evolution until we reach the contemporary period, where we find a political climate described as "interest-group liberalism." Eventually this paper will seek to determine which has been the most beneficial, and which is ultimately preferable.
...udgetary ideas to political conduct is off base. However the essential choice making technique that individuals confront inside the political world is close enough that scientists and professionals have beneficially utilized some budgetary ideas to deal with the variables influencing voters' choices.
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.
Rationalism states that the main source of our knowledge is through mind, rather than the senses. Intuition
My first personal political views grew from an evaluation of my parents’ attitudes, which created an unwavering belief that all people should be treated equally and fairly, and that we should reserve judgment of others simply because they think, live, or look differently than we do. As I have gotten older and expanded my political knowledge, I have also come to see the value and importance of an involved federal government that strives to ensure the well-being of all its people. When describing the
On the spectrum of politics (or any other ideologically-based matter), personal opinions will inevitably vary from one extreme on the left to the opposite on the right. In a governing system such as that of the United States, where the population directly elects representatives to govern, the position a candidate holds on the spectrum pertaining to certain issues in relation to other candidates becomes increasingly important. Theoretically, two people coming from different backgrounds and different political parties should provide contrasting opinions on major issues, allowing an individual voter to clearly and easily see the difference between his options and choose which option would be best for himself and his country. According to the Median Value Theorem, however, in most cases, the candidate's personal views and priorities cannot be considered if a victorious election is the ultimate goal, leading to nearly identical candidates at the time of election. Although this theory contains flaws, both theoretically in the actual workings and ideologically in the results, it is still valid and important to today's political strategies.
Rationality from the Latin ‘rationari’ meaning to ‘think’ or ‘calculate’ is a significant concept in Western philosophy born out of the Enlightenment. During the 17th and 18th centuries many philosophers began to emphasise the use of reason as the best method of learning objective truth. Pioneers in this field include Descartes and Locke.
According to one of rational choice theory’s prominent and more thoughtful contemporary exponents, Peter C. Ordeshook, “four books mark the beginning of modern political theory: Anthony Downs’s An Economic Theory of Democracy (1957), Duncan Black’s Theory of Committees and Elections (1958), William H. Riker’s A Theory of Political Coalitions (1962), and James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock’s The Calculus of Consent (1962). These volumes, along with Kenneth Arrow’s Social Choice and Individual Values (1951), began such a wealth of research that political scientists today have difficulty digesting and synthesizing all but small parts of it. Consequently, the full value of this research often goes unrealized…” (Ordeshook 1986, ix)
Believing that reason is the main source of knowledge is another clear distinction of rationalism. Rationalists believe that the 5 senses only give you opinions, not reasons. For example, in Descartes’ wax argument, he explains how a candle has one shape to begin with- but once the candle is lit, it begins to melt, lose its fragrance, and take on a completely different shape than it had started with. This argument proves that our senses can be deceiving and that they should not be trusted.
Hollis, M., & Lukes, S. (1982). Apparently Irrational Beliefs.Rationality and relativism (pp. 149-180). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.