Rational Ignorance

In economics, the tendency to make voting decisions based on a little information and a lot of opinion is called rational ignorance. This theory holds that voting the party line is rational, because the time it would take to become informed provides little personal value to the individual. The reason is that the individual's vote itself is not of much value. One informed person in a sea of hundreds of thousands uninformed people is not going to hold back the tide of ignorant voters. The candidate the majority votes for wins the elections (Electoral College aside). And the majority of voters are ignorant, opinionated, and reactionary.

Logically, the theory presents a fairly sound explanation for an unfortunate phenomenon we witness election after election after election. When it's simply used as an explanation, I don't have a problem with the theory of rational ignorance. However, when economists, politicians, and voters use it to justify ignorance, then it becomes a big, big problem. Accepting rational ignorance as inevitable and tolerable is why we have so many unresolved issues today.

Voting, while an individual right, is not an individual pastime. Certainly, our votes are private. Yet, at the same time, are votes are pooled together with those of other voters in order to make a decision. This means that any change that is going to be enacted in American politics needs to reach a critical mass before it can have a strong, obvious effect. If you alone are informed, you cannot impact the election; but, if you help your fellow voters become informed, you can have a dramatic impact on the election. This is what political campaigning is all about.

Imagine for a moment such a campaign wasn't about a politician, a party, or even a political mindset. Imagine "Get out the vote" campaigns that focus on getting voters informed. That is what I would like to see; that is what VOID tries to do. Don't ask people who they are voting for, ask why they are voting for someone. Voters informing voters will change politics, because so much of politics today relies on voter ignorance.

As I see it, combating rational ignorance requires two things. First, reliable information needs to be cheaper - in time and effort. There are several organizations that devote themselves to this: Vote Smart, Congress.org, and Common Cause are a few of the national organizations. Second, it requires that regular people make the decision not only to be informed, but to urge their fellow citizens to become informed. Change requires more than one person, but one person can get it started.

In closing, I ask you to think about the last election you participated in: Think about who you voted for. How much did you know about that representative? What did you base your decision to vote for them on? Whether or not that candidate won the election, think about the power and responsibility that seat holds. Did you vote for a presidential candidate? Think about how much power the President wields. Did you vote for a senatorial candidate? Think about how much power a Senator wields. Think about each candidate you voted for, and how much power they would have had (or do have) if they won the election. Think about what you knew about that candidate and how you decided on that candidate. Ask yourself, how responsible was your decision? If each voter took responsibility for their own decision, their own influence, then we could see real change.

Ignorance may be rational and reasonable, but it is neither responsible nor wise. When you vote, you are acting not simply for yourself, but for everyone. Be informed. Vote responsibly.

By Stephanie Crist
Published: May 30, 2009 12:37 AM
0 Votes