Voting's High Information Cost

In the last post, The Problem with Independent Candidates, it was my goal to convey some of the issues with un-affiliated persons running for office.

This is the same reason why voters when choosing between two candidates in a general election should really just base their decision on the letter next to the name of the candidate; Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green or otherwise.

The reason for this can be summed up in the statement that a competition between party aligned candidates simply make values based voting decisions easier than if one of the competing candidates is un-affiliated.

It is important to note the statement's premise. That ease of choice when voting is valuable. That choosing a candidate is hard. 

It is difficult because voting is an activity with a high information cost. A voter who is interested in making an educated decision needs to take the time to read bios, news, and ads in a constantly changing landscape that is often marred by diversions and red herrings.

Even the most astute voter can spend hours pouring over the candidates and come away feeling like they are no better informed. It follows then, that the voter who has less time and energy to devote to establishing who he or she wants to commit to for that election would be even more lost.

Think about it this way; after a long shift at work John/Jane Q. comes home on a fall evening ahead of a coming election. He/she makes dinner, or tidy's up the place, or plays with the kids, or flips on the tube. Not particularly high on the list of things to do will likely be read up on candidate X's policy. That is understandable. 

Policy is complex, and to even begin to decide whether you like X's approach to things you have to know about that issue, where to get info on it and so on down the rabbit hole.

I am not advocating a "leave it to the experts approach". I am just acknowledging the reality that many people simply aren't aware of X's policies finer points for any number of reasons. 

One may say it is your civic duty to know, but we cannot be dismissive of the legitimate reasons why many citizens are unaware.

This is where the party system is helpful. For those many voters who are not in a position to know those finer points, or ever the basic ones in choosing one party or the other, a voter can be relatively certain in the choice that they are making of what the candidate they cast their ballot for supports. 

Democrats for instance would like to say that they have a proud history of responsibility to America's citizens in providing a safety net for those in need. Republicans would probably agree that they feel as though they are striving to protect citizens from what they might feel is government overreach.

In either case, a voter can be a little more certain of what they are getting when making their choice because of the letter next to the candidates name.

The social science supports this. 

Americans often like to believe that individuals are all on their own, but in fact when it comes to politics we usually act . . . as part of groups. Those groups tend to be affiliated with one or the other of our major political parties. And those parties, and the politicians that they elect, know it – and so elected officials tend to be especially responsive to the groups within their electoral coalition. So, for example, knowing that Barack Obama was a Democrat and that as organized groups gays and lesbians are aligned with the Democrats turned out to be a far better predictor of Obama’s position on marriage than, for example, what he actually said on the campaign trail in 2008. (Salon)

This is why I argue that when a candidate removes him or herself from the party system a voters choice can become more obscured. Emphasis added given that turnout is especially low in municipal races. Lower turnout, I would argue, leads to a further dearth of information for voters, even if they are tuned in. 

Philadelphia's Mayor Micheal Nutter once said that there is no Republican or Democratic way to fill a pothole. This is often people's opinion in municipal elections and it is easy to say and think as long as the GOP isn't competitive in cities. Nevertheless, it could be said that if there is an independent way to fill a pot hole, I don't know if many voters would know what that way would be.