Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Politicians Believe About Their Constituents: Asymmetric Misperceptions [pdf]

stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: What Politicians Believe About Their Constituents: Asymmetric Misperceptions [pdf]

#41

Post by MaysonL »

huherto wrote: post #40
Afforess wrote: post #7

The best quote of the paper (pg 23): > Interestingly, the reason we uncover such striking misperceptions does not appear to be that politicians are reluctant to admit a belief that public opinion is not on their side – many do. Rather, it seems that the reality of where the public stands on these issues has such a weak influence on politicians’ perceptions of public opinion that two candidates coming to judgments abo…

Following the juror model... Step 1 - From the district lists randomly select a small number of electors. Step 2 - Sequester the electors. Step 3 - The candidates present their proposals, background, arguments, counter arguments. Step 4 - Electors listen, meditate and cast a secret vote. Step 5 - Eliminate the candidate with the lowest number of votes. Step 6 - Repeat from Step 3 until one candidate has more than 51%…

Slightly better, and works well in practice[0], replace step 6 with "Repeat from step 3 until one candidate has more than 2/3 the votes, and possibly chage step 5 to cut candidate list down more quickly (imagine how long it would take to eliminate 1 at a time with 100 candidates). If after 2 candidates remain neither gets more than 2/3 the vote, flip a coin.

[0] Search "AA 3d Legacy Election"

Re: What Politicians Believe About Their Constituents: Asymmetric Misperceptions [pdf]

#42

Post by MaysonL »

jgroszko wrote: post #14
Afforess wrote: post #7

The best quote of the paper (pg 23): > Interestingly, the reason we uncover such striking misperceptions does not appear to be that politicians are reluctant to admit a belief that public opinion is not on their side – many do. Rather, it seems that the reality of where the public stands on these issues has such a weak influence on politicians’ perceptions of public opinion that two candidates coming to judgments abo…

> I've long maintained congress would be much more representative if eligible citizens were randomly selected for 1 congressional term, like jurors are in juries. And like jurors in juries, wouldn't we then be governed by people not smart enough to get out of their congressional term?

Easy potential fix: make the pay reasonably attractive (say 150% of median wage), and allow people to buy themselves out of it by paying their replacement's salary (and if the first 100 people picked all opt out to pay, then that's about 99x pure government profit).

Re: What Politicians Believe About Their Constituents: Asymmetric Misperceptions [pdf]

#43

Post by mindcrime »

hackuser wrote: post #27
roymurdock wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be fascinating to look at the dynamic of how young people interact with an increasingly-old government today. Personally I don't know too many people who believe in the system/even care enough to show up to public meetings, write their representatives, or even vote for that matter. Have these dynamics have changed over the years? Is your research group working on anything in this vein?

> how young people interact with an increasingly-old government today Interesting. Is government, by which I assume you mean elected officials, really aging?

There appears to be some reason to think so, although this article 100% up to date:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...

Re: What Politicians Believe About Their Constituents: Asymmetric Misperceptions [pdf]

#44

Post by hackuser »

dbroockman wrote: post #36
hackuser wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the paper, and for answering questions. There are a couple of hypotheses I wonder about: 1) Politicians don't care about constituent's current opinions, but about their future response to actions the politican might undertake. For example, recent articles indicate widespread support in the U.S. for gun control, but a politician might anticipate: If I support a gun control measure then the NRA will run ads…

Here are some guesses. On (1), the mental model I have is more like an understanding of who the super-intense supporters are. 90% of people might say they support background checks for gun purchases, but it's the 10% who support it who are voting on the basis of that issue, in part due to organizations like the NRA. I think our findings are consistent with that, in the sense that politicians seem to believe they don'…

I wonder if any state legislature has ever received the votes of more than a tiny minority.

Thanks for your insights, and for taking the time to answer!

Re: What Politicians Believe About Their Constituents: Asymmetric Misperceptions [pdf]

#45

Post by eli_gottlieb »

SteveLAnderson wrote: post #33
bsder wrote: post #26

It's kind of fascinating that the liberal assessments seem to reflect reality much more closely. Why? Conservative politicians don't have a good reason to be wrong. In fact, it's quite the opposite, the better at estimating who your constituents you are, the more likely you are to be reelected. I'd guess probably error bias. As a conservative, if you overestimate the conservatism of your district, you're not likely t…

I think you make an interesting claim in your comment - that right wing voters are more likely than left wing voters to vote against (ie, punish) someone. I agree with you, since in my experience right wingers are more reactionary than left wingers, but I wonder if there's any data on that.

It's not that right-wingers are innately more reactive than left-wing voters. It's that left-wing voters are only now getting genuinely angry about being told, for the past four decades, to just shut up and take whatever the Establishment gives us.

Consider the current two Presidential primaries. Among the Republican Party, there's a contest to see who's the most conservative, and candidates are competing to come up with a platform that appeals to the party base. Among the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton is presumed to be the obvious, inevitable, entitled winner, and so there's a deliberate attempt to suppress actual competition for the nomination, most especially competition from the insurgent left-populist Bernie Sanders.

Re: What Politicians Believe About Their Constituents: Asymmetric Misperceptions [pdf]

#46

Post by jgroszko »

dragonwriter wrote: post #17
jgroszko wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've long maintained congress would be much more representative if eligible citizens were randomly selected for 1 congressional term, like jurors are in juries. And like jurors in juries, wouldn't we then be governed by people not smart enough to get out of their congressional term?

> > I've long maintained congress would be much more representative if eligible citizens were randomly selected for 1 congressional term, like jurors are in juries. > And like jurors in juries, wouldn't we then be governed by people not smart enough to get out of their congressional term? Now, I think that a by-lot Congress is a really bad idea for a variety of reasons, but that's a moderately stupid argument when it…

Agree that it's a pretty naive argument. There's probably a lot more to be said about how it would give even more influence to lobbyists and staffers that would stick around in DC for years and be far more knowledgeable about how to get things done.

Re: What Politicians Believe About Their Constituents: Asymmetric Misperceptions [pdf]

#47

Post by SteveLAnderson »

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #45
SteveLAnderson wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you make an interesting claim in your comment - that right wing voters are more likely than left wing voters to vote against (ie, punish) someone. I agree with you, since in my experience right wingers are more reactionary than left wingers, but I wonder if there's any data on that.

It's not that right-wingers are innately more reactive than left-wing voters. It's that left-wing voters are only now getting genuinely angry about being told, for the past four decades, to just shut up and take whatever the Establishment gives us. Consider the current two Presidential primaries. Among the Republican Party, there's a contest to see who's the most conservative, and candidates are competing to come up…

I do think that right wing voters are more reactive. They tend to see/hear something, and that something becomes the most important thing. That's why Rep. McCarthy's statement on the Benghazi hearing resulted in him losing his opportunity to become speaker. If that had happened 6 months ago, it wouldn't have been a problem because the right wingers would have moved on to something else.

Left wing voters more often are in it for the long haul. They cringe when someone says something stupid, but they don't react with pitchforks and torches.

That's why there's never been a left wing Rush. It just doesn't work.

Post reply on HN