Voters Aren't Voting on Democracy
For the next couple of weeks I’m gonna write about economic and behavioral economic concepts that intersect with the midterm elections in November. More importantly, I’m gonna write about how the people most concerned about these operate in their own world, insulated from ordinary voters, because they assume everyone cares as much as they do.
Up first is democracy.
I’ve never been shy about my love for democracy. It might be helpful for the rest of this to read something I wrote early in the year.
Democrats have had very little, if any success this election season arguing that democracy itself is in danger. There is no question, for those of us who pay close attention, that this is true. Not only are there hundreds of candidates who refuse to accept the legitimacy of the 2020 election, but there are many who have signaled they won’t accept any election in which they lose. The fringier parts of the party don’t want democracy, and aren’t too shy about saying so. Some even want to make elections a mere ritual, and do away with the people choosing their representatives at all.
No matter how bad the warning signs get, they are ignored. Voters might say they care about democracy, but they don’t vote like it. And this appears to be a problem in democracies around the globe.
What I am arguing today is that this actually makes sense. People shouldn’t care about democracy.
I hope you’re enjoying this letter so far. You can subscribe to make sure to catch every edition of The Constituent. It’s completely free!
That sounds strange coming from someone who consistently writes in support of democracy. But, people make decisions based on their experiences, and their experience of democracy hasn’t been all that great lately. Only 9% of people actually think it’s working well. In fact, the largest complaint people have about democracy isn’t at all what people who worry about creeping authoritarianism think it is. Rather than the trend toward a would-be autocrat, most Americans are concerned about corruption of officials within democracy.
The simple fact is that people don’t think democracy is working. And really, it hasn’t been. People’s lives have been slowly eroding as inequality grows. Typical working class Americans have seen their income, adjusted for inflation, actually decline for the last 50 or so years. The good ole American dream just isn’t as rosy as it used to be.
This is why economic arguments have been carrying a lot more sway for voters than democracy arguments. If democracy isn’t making life better, it’s rational for voters to care little for its future. Why lament the loss of a system that doesn’t provide benefits? If voters believe the United States’ democratic system is too corrupt to improve society, what point is there to base a vote on the future of that system? If corruption is baked into the cake, why not vote for the person they believe can work within the corruption to make their lives better, even if that person flirts with authoritarianism?
This is the perfectly rational thing to do.
In essence, the argument Democrats are making when they talk so much about democracy is this: “We have an urgent need to change things in order to keep the current system that we have.”
But this is a terrible argument to make if you want to win a vote. My general rule for politics applies here: Because people internalize losses as larger than they internalize equal gains, an argument for a change has to be at least twice as good as the argument against it. Democrats want to introduce change in order to keep a system that isn’t working. No argument could be less persuasive than this. It is an argument that both introduces risk of loss when it talks about changes, and attempts to sell the changes by saying things will stay in a state of mediocre-at-best. Far from twice as good as the argument against the changes, it is almost a self defeating argument.
On the other hand, if a benevolent dictator can make everyone’s lives better, wouldn’t that be the best system, or at least, better than the current one? This is the appeal Donald Trump has for so many. He fights!
If someone honestly believes that a person like Donald Trump fights for them, and the current system doesn’t, scrapping democracy in favor of Trump is a rational preference.
At least in the short term.
Having fun? Learning something new? If so, do me a favor and let your friends know about The Constituent.
The problem with this rational calculation is its time horizon. This is an incredibly short sighted analysis, because Donald Trump is an old man who will die fairly soon. So, what about the next guy? How can a voter be sure the next guy will fight for them? What if the next guy is overly obsessed with ensuring his own continuity of power that he mismanages the economy and makes things worse (looking at you, Winnie the Pooh)? Why would the next guy be better than Xi?
Any brief study of history shows us that the Neros and Caligulas will always follow the Octavians. But, if voters aren’t paying enough attention to the details of the plot to dismiss popular sovereignty, why would they steep themselves in the details of dictatorial succession? Ordinary folks just want to work their jobs, and come home to enjoy their families, friends, and hobbies. And that is the way life should be! People shouldn’t have to spend a big chunk of their free time digesting political news just to keep their livelihoods.
Except, this is basically what democrats are asking voters to do. Nothing in policy is simple, but people want it to be simple. Democrats are terrible at making their messaging simple. If only Charlie Day can understand your argument, you aren’t likely to win many voters. There just aren’t enough people willing to spend that much time digesting policy.
Then, when Democrats manage to convince someone they are right and win that vote, things don’t really change. Our system is set up to stifle change, not accelerate it. This is just one more in a long line of incentives to tune out politics.
People ought to care about democracy, but expecting them to isn’t going to win elections. Democrats don’t understand ordinary voters enough to realize the weakness of this argument.
I have to close with a defense of democracy. No matter how much effort it might take for it to work, I haven’t seen anything else that can work as well.
The proverb made famous by Winston Churchill applies here.
“Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried”
People should care about democracy, because every bit of recorded history on Earth is testimony that it is the best bet for making people’s lives better. Even if it sucks, it sucks way less than any other option. The biggest shortcoming in American democracy is that we aren’t democratic enough.
Whether it is the post Civil War Amendments; the Women’s Suffrage Amendment; lowering the voting age to 18; the direct election of senators; or letting DC vote in presidential elections, the majority of alterations to our Constitution have come with the purpose of making the nation more democratic in it’s governance.
Democracy does matter, and more of it will make things better.
Unfortunately, candidates are not going to win votes by saying as much.
Thanks for reading The Constituent. If you’d like to support the newsletter, here are a few options.
-Thanks,