RS147 - Andrew Gelman on "Why do Americans vote the way they do?"

Release date: November 15, 2015

Andrew GelmanThere are two contradictory stories about politics and class: On the one hand, that the Republicans are the party of the fat cat businessmen and the Democrats are the party of the people. And on the other hand, that the Republicans are the party of the salt-of-the-earth Joe Sixpacks, while the Democrats are latte-sipping elites. In this episode, professor of statistics and political science Andrew Gelman shines some clarifying light on the intersection between politics and class in America, explaining what the numbers really show. He and Julia also cover the question, "Is it rational to vote?"

Gelman's pick: The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract

Gelman's "other picks":

5 Books on Statistics and 5 Books on How Americans Vote

Gelman's blog: Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science

His book on voting: Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do

Podcast edited by Brent Silk

Full Transcripts 

Comments

[Pierre Dragicevic]

I enjoyed this episode, and as many others I'm a fan of Andrew Gelman.

In the episode summary, I was excited to see that the paradox of not voting would be finally discussed in Rationally Speaking. Although I was hoping for a longer discussion, Gelman's insights were already interesting. I like the idea that the expected value (from an altruistic perspective) of voting can exceed the individual cost, given that a vast number of people can be affected by political decisions. But how likely is this to happen in reality? And how do I know that my vote is better than others'? Taking these into account, and considering that I could do something more productive for society instead of going voting, isn't voting still irrational in the vast majority of cases?

To me this is one of the most difficult and important philosophical problems, so I'm really hoping that an entire episode will be devoted to it. I'd especially like to hear discussions about pro-voting arguments such as "what if everybody did that?" or "it's your duty as citizen". I hear them a lot, including from otherwise rational people, but I doubt their validity. People also often get very emotional about this.

[Max]

Extremely small probability for an extremely large outcome is like playing the lottery.
Ultimately it does come down to "what if everybody did that?" same as with getting vaccinated, not littering, etc. If a few people transgress, it's not a big deal, but if enough people do it, the election loses legitimacy, herd immunity is lost, and the pollution becomes unbearable.

[Jameson]

Both parties definitely cater to bib banks, big business, and big labor.

http://www.thedailyeconomist.com/2012/01/mitt-romney-joins-obama-and-bush-as.html (click on chart)

https://www.mercatus.org/publication/top-25-political-donations-1989-2014

http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/03/lobbying-sunlight-foundation/

Wealthy bankers and other big business in California, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut buy off both parties.

People vote with their pocket books. The poor generally vote for higher taxes, and the rich generally vote for lower taxes.

You should vote if you vote for smaller government.

[Ernesto]

"Is it rational to vote?"

Well it depends where you are in the Social Class? Those who are Upper Class should most definitely vote because the Politicians will be more aligned with their goals while those in the Lower Class are just there to be used for whatever political agendas are being pursued and have no real benefit in this type of governing. So yeah the further up you are in Social Class, voting will be more relevant and beneficial for you while the lower down you go in Social Class, voting becomes more irrelevant, useless and even irrational.