This paper seeks to establish evidence for the existence of systematic irrationality in the democratic voting of the 2016 United States Presidential election. From results of some of the key movements and deviations during the electoral process, the electoral victory of President Donald Trump is scrutinized under the theoretical lens of Brian Caplan's theory of rational irrationality and found to offer empirical support. Furthermore, the paper seeks to investigate the possible regulatory policy implications of elected officials chosen on the basis of systematic bias and determine their possible impact.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. The topic of this paper concerns the unusual electoral outcomes of the 2016 United States presidential election and explores a theoretical model for the causes as well as possible effects of the election on regulation.
B. The concept of the systematic failure of democracy analyzed from an economic standpoint is not new.
C. Responses to rational ignorance as an explanation for electoral outcomes and the subsequent policies that arise prominently include the Miracle of Aggregation.
D. This paper chooses to utilize Brian Caplan’s theory of rational irrationality precisely because it circumvents these objections and explains democratic failures or seemingly irrational electoral outcomes as not because voters are ignorant or deceived, but precisely because they receive the things that they tend to want.
II. Topic Background
A. The most significant and to many, surprising, consequence of the 2016 presidential election was the victory of Donald Trump, who managed to successfully defy Republican Party establishment figures while espousing rhetoric containing a strong anti-immigration as well as anti-free trade bias.
III. Theoretical Analysis
A. Caplan’s theory of rational irrationality lends itself to the analysis of the 2016 election by explaining voter behavior not as a result of classical rational ignorance, but by empirically arguing for the existence of pervasive and irrational cognitive biases that are bound to affect the direction of voter behavior in the aggregate.
B. The effects of policies instituted by politicians elected by means of rational irrationality extend somewhat beyond the scope of Caplan’s theory.
IV. Empirical Analysis
A. The empirical support for Caplan’s theory and evidence from the 2016 election results in key swing states are intended to demonstrate the existence of systematic anti-trade and anti-immigration biases and their importance in determining the outcome of the 2016 election.
1. Figure 8 (deleted by editor) illustrates the econometric result of the questions, “Do you think trade agreements between the United States and other countries have helped create more jobs in the U.S., or have they cost the U.S. jobs, or they haven’t made much difference,” and Figure 10 illustrates the result of the degree to which participants agree that, “Companies sending jobs overseas,” is a reason that the economy is not growing more quickly.
2. Tying this cognitive bias to the election results of states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, the focus will be on voting districts that voted for the Democratic candidate Barack Obama in 2012 but chose to vote for Donald Trump in 2016.
3. A further contributing factor, evidenced by the SAEE may have been Trump’s ability to appeal to the rational irrationality of anti-immigration bias, demonstrated by the disparity between the enlightened and unenlightened public opinion in.
V. Consequences and Counterarguments
A. There is little doubt that the causes of rational irrationality as well as the political and economic conditions facilitating it are central to the proposed investigation of Donald Trump’s victory.
B. Counterarguments to this position do exist, however.
VI. Conclusion
A. Though the causes and effects of rational irrationality are broad, the internally consistent theoretical models of Brian Caplan, David Ricardo, and Donald Boudreaux provide strong evidence for the existence of a rationally irrational phenomenon in American politics, epitomized by the election of Donald Trump.
Research Objectives & Topics
This paper aims to investigate the 2016 U.S. Presidential election through the lens of Brian Caplan’s "rational irrationality" theory, proposing that electoral outcomes were driven by systematic cognitive biases among voters rather than traditional ignorance, and to assess the potential regulatory policy implications of such outcomes.
- Application of Public Choice theory to the 2016 election results.
- Comparative analysis of electoral shifts in key swing states.
- Evaluation of anti-trade and anti-immigration rhetoric through cognitive bias models.
- Analysis of economic data regarding voter perceptions vs. expert consensus.
- Discussion on the long-term impact of irrational voter bias on market regulations.
Excerpt from the Book
Theoretical Analysis
Caplan’s theory of rational irrationality lends itself to the analysis of the 2016 election by explaining voter behavior not as a result of classical rational ignorance, but by empirically arguing for the existence of pervasive and irrational cognitive biases that are bound to affect the direction of voter behavior in the aggregate. In defining rational irrationality, Caplan distinguishes between two types of irrationality: epistemic and instrumental. Caplan’s theory posits that epistemic rationality is a belief-forming process by which careful reasoning is used to develop reliably true beliefs. Instrumental rationality, rather, is described as the process of seeking one’s actual values and ends given a prepossessed set of beliefs. Rational irrationality, thus, describes a situation in which it is instrumentally rational to be epistemically irrational. This model would then be applied to voting by accepting two key assumptions: that for certain activities, the marginal cost of holding an irrational belief is low, and thus, by the law of demand, individuals will consume more irrational beliefs than they might have otherwise, and secondly, that people have preferences for certain beliefs over others. These may be thought to include beliefs that are satisfying or comforting. In the case of voting, unlike markets, the marginal cost of error is relatively low, as one vote has a negligible potential to change an election. In the context of the model, this implies that consumers will consume more irrationality when they vote and thus, systematically select policies and candidates that appeal to their rationally irrational bias.
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: This chapter introduces the 2016 U.S. presidential election as a case study for Brian Caplan's framework of rational irrationality to explain sharp deviations in electoral outcomes.
II. Topic Background: This section outlines the unexpected victory of Donald Trump and sets the stage for exploring how his rhetoric on trade and immigration influenced election results.
III. Theoretical Analysis: This chapter defines the core concepts of epistemic and instrumental rationality and explains the mechanism by which voters adopt irrational beliefs due to the low cost of electoral error.
IV. Empirical Analysis: This chapter provides data from the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy (SAEE) and examines voting shifts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to support the theory.
V. Consequences and Counterarguments: This section discusses potential regulatory impacts of the election and addresses critiques from economists like George Borjas regarding the effects of immigration on workers.
VI. Conclusion: This chapter summarizes the findings, asserting that rational irrationality offers a compelling narrative for the 2016 election outcomes and warns of potential long-term detrimental effects on market functioning.
Keywords
Rational Irrationality, 2016 Presidential Election, Public Choice Theory, Cognitive Bias, Donald Trump, Swing States, Protectionism, Anti-Immigration Bias, Rational Ignorance, Economic Regulation, Electoral Behavior, SAEE, Market Efficiency, Political Science, Voting Behavior
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research?
The research examines the 2016 United States Presidential election through the theoretical framework of Brian Caplan’s "rational irrationality" to explain why electoral outcomes shifted significantly.
What are the core thematic fields covered in the work?
The work covers political economy, public choice theory, behavioral economics, electoral analysis, and the impact of cognitive biases on government policy and market regulation.
What is the central research question?
The paper addresses why electoral outcomes in 2016 deviated so sharply from previous years and whether this can be explained by voters systematically choosing irrational beliefs that align with their personal preferences.
Which methodology is employed in the study?
The author utilizes a public choice theoretical framework combined with empirical analysis of data from the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy (SAEE) and regional voting trends in swing states.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body covers the distinction between rational ignorance and rational irrationality, the application of this theory to Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric, and an empirical analysis of economic perceptions in key U.S. states.
Which keywords best describe this paper?
Key terms include Rational Irrationality, 2016 Presidential Election, Cognitive Bias, Public Choice, Protectionism, and Anti-Immigration Bias.
How does the author define rational irrationality?
It is defined as a situation in which it is instrumentally rational for individuals to be epistemically irrational, specifically when the marginal cost of holding a biased belief is low, such as in a voting scenario.
Does the author consider alternative explanations for the election results?
Yes, the author acknowledges that other factors like candidate personality, voter demographics, and turnout rates are not excluded by the rational irrationality model and could be studied via different rational choice theories.
- Quote paper
- Seth Carter (Author), 2018, How Rational Irrationality Shaped the 2016 Presidential Election, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/429679
