while others suggested the voters were not so much fools as, uh, "cognitive misers."
The term I've seen used is "rationally ignorant".
Because learning a lot in order to rationally cast your vote, from the details and facts, to achieving an informed understanding of what they mean, takes time and effort, and because fully understanding the publicly stated positions and policy ideas of politicians also takes time and effort, and because the odds that your vote will make any difference in the election is microscopic, then it might be reasonably said that learning and thinking about all of that, just for the purpose of casting a more informed vote might not make sense. Added to all that is the fact that even if you learn what a candidate proposes and promises there is no way to know if he'll actually follow through on those ideas or even try.
The real incentive to know these things is the desire to know them for its own good, or to take part in discussions about them if that interests you. If neither of these things means much to someone, I can see why they would remain relatively ignorant.
OTOH, if they are consciously and deliberately following the rationally ignorance plan then you would think they would also rationally refrain from voting. Not only because the vote is unlikely to effect the election, but also because if they realize that they are ignorant than even if they do somehow manage to swing the election, how do they know they swung it in the right way?
But most people who do remain relatively ignorant for this reason probably don't do so as part of a plan or as a consious deliberate choice.
Also voting has other returns for many people beyond the tiny possibility that their vote could help put a good leader or good policies in place. Some view it as an obligation, others do because it helps them feel part of the political group they identify with. |
