Voters ARE Stupid… Even When They Agree With Me

by Will Wilkinson on October 10, 2003

– Matt Welch reports on the horrified lefty reactions to the Schwarzenagger election. To sum it up, voters are stupid. Now, Matt’s right to imply that there’s almost certainly some level of hypocrisy here. When the majority agrees with you, you’ll tend to wax enthusiastic about the “mandate” for change established by the unimpeachable legitimacy of the “general will.” On the other hand, when the majority disagrees, then it’s just that voters are stupid, and we all need to be VERY VERY worried about voter ignorance and their susceptibility to manipulation.

I think the latter position is ALWAYS CORRECT!

Some democracy fetishist political theorists like to trumpet Condorcet’s theorem, which states that if voters in general are more likely than not to make the right choice, then the greater the number of voters, the greater the chance the election will deliver right answer. In fact, given a smart electorate, the probability that they’ll get it right approaches certainty when you get a voting population as big as California’s. What democracy fetishists don’t so often point out is that the downside is exactly as nasty as the upside is nice. If voters in general are more likely than not to make the wrong choice, then the probablitity that they’ll make the right choice quickly approaches zero as the number voters increases.

So, the question is: are voters smart or stupid? Answer: They are very very stupid!

Almost no one has or even can have the relevant information. And even if they CAN have the relevant information, it will be an immense waste of their scarce time and energy to get it, so they WON’T get it. The evidence points to stupid voters. (I am not impressed with models that argue that following the lead of parties, interest groups, and so forth is a low-cost trick that improves the quality of voter decisions. Parties and interest groups are stupid too!)

So my conclusion about Schwarzennegger is that he was almost certainly the wrong choice, or if he was they right choice, almost everybody voted for him for the WRONG REASON. But this is not unique to Schwarzenegger. The point is perfectly general. Winning an election with incredibly high turnout is about the best possible evidence that you shouldn’t have won!

Yes, I’m being a bit flip. But only a bit!

  • nobody.really
    How does it happen that people comment on a 5-yr-old post?

    And a cute post at that. At the risk (certainty?) of being a killjoy, I’d expect smart voters to make the right decision (however defined) and stupid voters to make a random decision. I’m not aware of any reason to believe that all those techniques for swaying voters that do not positively correlate with merit must therefore negatively correlate with merit.

    Thus the fact that the public supports any proposition is, at worst, meaningless.
  • Travis
    While I don't dispute the math you use to arrive at the conclusion that a large electorate will probably yield a 'wrong' candidate, I do ask the question of what constitutes 'right' and 'wrong'.

    Inherent in a belief in democracy is the notion that the majority of the people of a nation are the best to decide what's 'right' and 'wrong'. If this were not so, we would believe in oligarchy or plutocracy, as those systems more closely follow a 'the best lead the rest' paradigm.

    Please remember mathematical formulae produce results only as good as the values put into the equation. With no solid universal criteria to rate 'right' and 'wrong' the math about the electorate choosing 'right' or 'wrong' leaders becomes just an interesting mental exercise of little practical value.

    Thanks,
    -Travis
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: