I don't have part 1 in front of me, but from what I read in part 2, there is insufficient discussion of "representative rationality" or "mediated ignorance," which is to say that voters manage to be "somewhat" informed by the mediation of opinion makers -- newspapers, pundits, columnists, "influencers,," political parties, friends, other elected officials, etc. In the single-transferable-vote form of proportional representation, as in Cambridge, MA, individuals or groups create slates to communicate their positions and advocate for them, and the voters are thereby educated, partly by the fact that they know some of the candidates and assume the fellow-s;late members have compatible positions. This is far from ideal, but many vote as recommended by others, sometimes assuming (wrongly) that they are being advised of what is in the interest of the group making the recommendation, which they assume is their interest, also wrongly. E. g., "What's the matter with Kansas?" Notwithstanding this omission, chapter 8.2 is depressingly correct.
Yes... but.... Here is a paragraph from an upcoming post that deals with slates and endorsements...
Some may argue that rational ignorance is not so important because many voters become virtually informed, by offloading the time-consuming effort to some trusted surrogate or leader. They look at lists of endorsed candidates by the League of Conservation Voters, the NRA, the Chamber of Commerce, their union, church leader, or simply Uncle Luke (who pays attention to politics). However, this decision to defer to some particular “better informed” person or organization is itself usually an emotionally-based and rarely a carefully considered choice. It is merely rational ignorance one place removed.
So, endorsements and following the money are also rational ignorance? It seems to me that even if you knew everything there is to know about a candidate or ballot measure, with only a binary decision possible, it would be hard to make a rational decision. The better of two evils or some other variation applies. The rational, informed decision is to not vote or vote none of the above.
It just occurred to me that rooting or barracking for a sports team CAN have an effect on the outcome of a game. Especially when you join with fellow fans of the same team. Just like a theater performer performing better when the audience cheers them on.
I don't have part 1 in front of me, but from what I read in part 2, there is insufficient discussion of "representative rationality" or "mediated ignorance," which is to say that voters manage to be "somewhat" informed by the mediation of opinion makers -- newspapers, pundits, columnists, "influencers,," political parties, friends, other elected officials, etc. In the single-transferable-vote form of proportional representation, as in Cambridge, MA, individuals or groups create slates to communicate their positions and advocate for them, and the voters are thereby educated, partly by the fact that they know some of the candidates and assume the fellow-s;late members have compatible positions. This is far from ideal, but many vote as recommended by others, sometimes assuming (wrongly) that they are being advised of what is in the interest of the group making the recommendation, which they assume is their interest, also wrongly. E. g., "What's the matter with Kansas?" Notwithstanding this omission, chapter 8.2 is depressingly correct.
Yes... but.... Here is a paragraph from an upcoming post that deals with slates and endorsements...
Some may argue that rational ignorance is not so important because many voters become virtually informed, by offloading the time-consuming effort to some trusted surrogate or leader. They look at lists of endorsed candidates by the League of Conservation Voters, the NRA, the Chamber of Commerce, their union, church leader, or simply Uncle Luke (who pays attention to politics). However, this decision to defer to some particular “better informed” person or organization is itself usually an emotionally-based and rarely a carefully considered choice. It is merely rational ignorance one place removed.
One of the very best chapters so far! 👏🙏
“sup-group” should be “subgroup”.
So, endorsements and following the money are also rational ignorance? It seems to me that even if you knew everything there is to know about a candidate or ballot measure, with only a binary decision possible, it would be hard to make a rational decision. The better of two evils or some other variation applies. The rational, informed decision is to not vote or vote none of the above.
It just occurred to me that rooting or barracking for a sports team CAN have an effect on the outcome of a game. Especially when you join with fellow fans of the same team. Just like a theater performer performing better when the audience cheers them on.