Rational People, Irrational Countries
Individual voters can hold perfectly rational and coherent political views, but when aggregated through majority rule with more than two options, the collective preference can become contradictory or nonsensical, leading to misleading poll results and political stalemates.
THE IDEA
RATIONAL PEOPLE, IRRATIONAL COUNTRIES
Let me stick up for the American people on this one, with the help of a word problem.
Suppose a third of the electorate thinks we should address the deficit by raising taxes without cutting spending; another third thinks we should cut defense spending; and the rest think we should drastically cut Medicare benefits.
Two out of three people want to cut spending; so in a poll that asks “Should we cut spending or raise taxes?” the cutters are going to win by a massive 67−33 margin.
So what to cut? If you ask, “Should we cut the defense budget?” you’ll get a resounding no: two-thirds of voters—the tax raisers joined by the Medicare cutters—want defense to keep its budget. And “Should we cut Medicare?” loses by the same amount.
That’s the familiar self-contradicting position we see in polls: We want to cut! But we also want each program to keep all its funding! How did we get to this impasse? Not because the voters are stupid or delusional. Each voter has a perfectly rational, coherent political stance. But in the aggregate, their position is nonsensical.
When you dig past the front-line numbers of the budget polls, you see that the word problem isn’t so far from the truth. Only 47% of Americans believed balancing the budget would require cutting programs that helped people like them. Just 38% agreed that there were worthwhile programs that would need to be cut. In other words: the infantile “average American,” who wants to cut spending but demands to keep every single program, doesn’t exist. The average American thinks there are plenty of non-worthwhile federal programs that are wasting our money and is ready and willing to put them on the chopping block to make ends meet. The problem is, there’s no consensus on which programs are the worthless ones. In large part, that’s because most Americans think the programs that benefit them personally are the ones that must, at all costs, be preserved. (I didn’t say we weren’t selfish, I just said we weren’t stupid!)
The “majority rules” system is simple and elegant and feels fair, but it’s at its best when deciding between just two options. Any more than two, and contradictions start to seep into the majority’s preferences. As I write this, Americans are sharply divided over President Obama’s signature domestic policy accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act. In an October 2010 poll of likely voters, 52% of respondents said they opposed the law, while only 41% supported it. Bad news for Obama? Not once you break down the numbers. Outright repeal of health care reform was favored by 37%, with another 10% saying the law should be weakened; but 15% preferred to leave it as is, and 36% said the ACA should be expanded to change the current health care system more than it currently does. That suggests that many of the law’s opponents are to Obama’s left, not his right. There are (at least) three choices here: leave the health care law alone, kill it, or make it stronger. And each of the three choices is opposed by most Americans.
The incoherence of the majority creates plentiful opportunities to mislead. The source next introduces an imagined Fox News report of these results, but that report is not included in this excerpt.
When to use it
Interpreting opinion polls that ask complex policy questions with multiple options; understanding why binary polls can be misleading.
Analyzing political gridlock where majority support exists for broad goals (e.g., budget cuts) but no consensus on specific trade-offs.
Designing better decision-making processes for groups with more than two alternatives, such as ranked-choice voting or deliberative polling.
Recognizing when a person or media outlet cherry-picks poll results to create a false narrative of public opinion.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
The Budget Deficit Polling Paradox
Suppose a third of voters want to raise taxes without cutting spending, another third want to cut defense spending, and the rest want to cut Medicare benefits. In a binary poll, 67% favor cutting spending over raising taxes. But when asked about specific cuts, 67% oppose cutting defense (the tax raisers plus the Medicare cutters) and 67% oppose cutting Medicare. Thus the majority simultaneously wants to cut spending and preserve every major program, a coherent paradox only because each voter's individual stance is rational.
Affordable Care Act Poll (October 2010)
52% of likely voters opposed the ACA, while 41% supported it. On the policy question, 37% favored outright repeal, 10% wanted to weaken it, 15% wanted to leave it as is, and 36% wanted to expand it. Thus 63% did not select outright repeal, and 64% did not select expansion. Those complements are not direct measures of opposition to each option. The breakdown shows why opposition to the law cannot simply be read as support for repeal: opponents may want different changes.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think of a public policy debate you've followed. Can you identify three distinct positions? Does the majority's preference become incoherent when you break down the options?
How might political strategists exploit the 'rational people, irrational countries' effect to misrepresent public opinion or push their agenda?
When making a group decision with your friends or coworkers, have you ever encountered a situation where everyone seems to agree on the goal but disagrees on the specifics, leading to a contradictory outcome?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- How Not to Be Wrong The Power of Mathematical Thinking (Ellenberg, Jordan)