The Mandate of Heaven

It's the Mandate of Heaven. People in power when things go wrong tend to get punished by the votes. People in power when things get better tend to get rewarded. This is true regardless of the cause of these trends.

Posted by: Marshall Eubanks | 10/13/08

Why democracy works

And that is not such a bad idea. It rotates the crooks and prevents any one faction from getting completely out of control. Democracy does not give us great government, but as long as it is functioning, it can keep us from hitting rock bottom and digging deeper...

Posted by: omar ali | 10/13/08

The Irrational Electorate

Just heard a great discussion of this article on Rush Limbaugh's 10-16-08 show.

Posted by: Chas | 10/16/08

Ironically true

Most shows of Rush Limbaugh would tend to support this premise...

Posted by: Bill | 10/17/08

Thought provoking

A thought provoking article that verifies some suspicions I've always had about the electorate. This explains a lot of behavior that defies marketing theory and consumer behavior. Hats off to Wilson Center. (And thanks, Rush Limbaugh, for the mention of this article!)

Posted by: Gorthaur | 10/17/08

tragedy of the uninformed

A million or more people might be alive today if the American electorate had been informed enough not to believe the Bush administration's insinuations that Iraq was involved in 9/11 or that Iraqis would be happy with an invasion by the the U.S.

Posted by: BJ | 10/19/08

Appreciation

This is a short note of appreciation for this article. I am teaching Unequal Democracy at a midwestern university and trying to zone in closely on precisely what Bartels thinks about the American voter, how he or she votes, why, and for what. Is it voter myopia, inattention, susceptibility to easy swaying, responsiveness to differential campaign spending, whether things are or have been getting better (very short term), what he calls unenlightened self interest, minor shares in the benefits, what? This edxploration gets me closer but still not close enough. Regarding growing income inequality, it is possible to explain voting by a rational voter model, if you accept that the incidence of growing inequality in the population and actual voting participation are different and distinct groups.... It is also possible to speculate voters think of aspirations, not actual income. But here Bartels goes further, expressly stating no about views of the rational voter, staking out a version of the irrational voter. Still struggling....

Posted by: KW | 10/21/08

Stupid?

I don't see the difference between the Reviewer's description of the electorate and stupid. So we are not stupid all the time? Granted. But are we stupid when we don't use the brains we have to analyse political situations--sure we are. What applies to smoking applies to politics. The information is available. If you can't apply it to your own behavior, to do the right thing, you are stupid.

Posted by: David McCullough | 10/25/08

Holding One's Cards Close to the Chest

Sometimes it is important for political figures to keep their cards close to their chest. Particularly, in our current hyper-connected reality, positions, viewpoints, words and their derivatives can be co-opted and their meaning can be violently kidnapped by bodies that are focused on things other than democracy. When that ability to process positions, policy votes and words in nearly the blink of an eye by the manipulating powers of some of the brilliant minds who have been trained to engage in barbaric and mercenary-like campaigning and advertising tactics is levied against people whose mental fortitude is no match for those tactics, rational and "informed" decision making goes out the window for most of Americans straight out of the gate. This election I was attracted to how some of the candidates were vague regarding their positions on certain issues. Thus, I am one example who might fit in to the "irrational" category, but I have made an entirely "rational" decision to vote based on my perception of the candidate. I accept the fact that those in the highest positions of power in the American government have information that citizens do not - and frankly should not - have. Thus, I argue that there is rationality in, as you put it, "choosing the candidate with the most competent-­looking face", especially if "brand" or another, more over-arching choice of diction were to replace "face". With such an abundance of information about the man or the "brand" or the "face", as it were, it would be the work of the highest genius to create a public relations scheme which protect any presidential candidate who is insincere from such a demanding media and media consumer as we have today. The real trick for "informed" voters is to accept that even the strongest political figure is human, and fallible. The unfortunate thing about our quite pure form of democracy is that it quickly ignores the lessons of the past in favor of a short-sighted viewpoint, which is where I think your article excels.

Posted by: Davis Jones | 10/27/08

Omitted studies

I am surprised that Larry Bartels skipped over my seminal article “Issue Salience and Party Choice,” (American Political Science Review, June 1971). This article used to be required reading in many political science graduate programs. Larry refers to the finding in The American Voter (and its recent replication) that issues are not an important factor in voting. In footnote 6, he also refers to a body of literature which points to the lack of measurement reliability of issue questions. In my 1971 article, I address these findings and demonstrate that, if measured correctly, issues are an important factor is voting and that most voters have a good idea of party positions on these issues. I have recently published an article in the online journal, The Forum, (http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol6/iss2/art5) which is a thorough analysis of ideological voting. In the conclusion to that article, I discuss the belief held by many political scientists that voters need ideological “moorings” in order to make sophisticated decisions. Voters can be “rational” without having in mind the reified paradigms of political scientists such as ideology, retrospective voting and long-range historical hindsight. We need an objective and consistent definition of what “rational” voting is before we can evaluate the degree of rational voting among the public. So far, that definition as been elusive. Each political scientist seems to have his or her personal view based on shifting, inconsistent criteria. That is not science.

Posted by: David RePass | 11/5/08