The Myth of the Rational Voter summary

You are probably well aware that many democratic governments implement policies that contradict the common good, such as debilitating protectionism. And in such cases, something is preventing the miracle of aggregation from fulfilling its role.

A major cause of such issues is widespread bias, which can stop the miracle of aggregation dead in its tracks. In the end, this miracle has one fatal flaw: it only works if opinions vary in all directions.

Now that we know how damaging biases can be to democracy let’s examine one of the most prevalent biases out there: a mistrust of the free market.

It’s true – most people believe that any action motivated by profit is necessarily bad and antisocial. In many cases, it’s taboo to even talk about the fact that most businesses necessarily want to turn a profit. Or, as the famous twentieth-century economist Joseph Schumpeter once put it: it’s like the free market is on trial, but the entire jury has decided that they’ll vote for the death penalty, long before the trial even begins.

We know now that many people don’t trust the free market, but another widespread bias is a general mistrust of foreign trade. While trade and exchange actually benefit both the buyer and the seller, people often assume that when two countries trade, only the exporter stands to benefit.

To support such claims, people often bring up statistics showing that more goods are imported into the United States than exported from it. In their minds, this means the country is handing out money to other nations.

So, we’ve unpacked a few common biases. But there’s one more that’s important to consider, and it can be a very emotional topic: jobs and, specifically, their preservation. Eliminating jobs is a surefire way for a company to invite public fury. But is laying off employees always such a bad thing?

Well, most people believe so, and as soon as a major company announces that they’ll be reducing their workforce, a media uproar ensues – especially if the company isn’t in danger of bankruptcy. When viewed this way, such a response is only fair; how dare a company make layoffs when they don’t have to?

While widespread bias is a threat to democracy, it’s certainly not the only one. Democracy is facing other challenges – and this next one might come as a surprise: people aren’t selfish enough.

In the context of democracies, this means that people don’t vote as selfishly as one might imagine. After all, you would expect people to vote solely according to their interests; indeed, many people commonly complain that other voters only care about themselves, failing to see the bigger picture when casting their ballot.

It’s clear that people are inherently biased and don’t tend to vote purely out of self-interest. But those aren’t the only threats to democracy; rather, they’re compounded by the reasons people do choose a particular candidate, party or political position.

We’ve already seen how common biases play a key role in the voting process by hindering the miracle of aggregation, which is fundamental to the functioning of a democracy. But there are other major influences at play, and an especially important one for voters is emotional attachment.

So, if we’re emotionally attached to a belief, what could make us change our minds? Well, we do tend to shift our beliefs when they appear to do us direct harm, such as when they cause us to suffer a financial loss. Ultimately, the only time we’re forced to act rationally is when our personal interests are on the line.

For instance, say you have a shop and personally believe you should only sell goods to people of a specific religion or political view. You might feel good since you can abide by your emotional beliefs – but simultaneously, you’re losing out on loads of potential customers. As soon as these lost customers start to seriously affect your bottom line, you’ll likely reconsider your beliefs, or at least their influence on your business practices.