[extropy-chat] Examining Risks (was RE: META: List Quality)

[Robin Hanson]

This is called "retrospective voting" in the political science 
literature.  Yes, it
has long been known that if voters would just vote to dump or keep an incumbent
based on if their life seems to be going better or worse than expected, this
would provide good incentives for a single central democratic power.

Unfortunately, power is divided, so that voters have to decide who to 
credit with
what changes.  And people do not just vote on their life - they 
consider how they
think other peoples lives are going, and they make judgements about the
particular policies pursued.  While an electorate who knew how little they know
might effectively discipline a central government, an overconfident electorate
can do a lot worse.

At 12:09 AM 2/26/2006, Kevin Freels wrote:
>Once again I am stunned by your powerful insight. You just made the case
>that people don't have to know what they are voting about to vote correctly.
>It is completely about the quality of life and the feeling that things are
>either better or worse. There is something very appealing about this. Would
>you mind going a bit further in depth? A few hundred years from know someone
>may do an analysis of  democratic governments and find that this is exactly
>how they worked and individuals with their issues didn;t make one bit of
>difference. ...
>
> > ... Well, one thing that happens is
> > in a democracy, politicians lose their jobs when things get worse, and
> > keep them when things get better.  This tends to happen whether it is
> > the politician's fault or not, which may seem unjust.  But it does give
> > them incentives to try to keep things getting better.  That's not such
> > a bad way to run a world.


Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323