tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6737941.post114754418060323475..comments2024-01-14T17:27:30.511-05:00Comments on Law, Legislation, and Lunacy: Package DealsDavidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14364155797420903461noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6737941.post-1149548443357570152006-06-05T19:00:00.000-04:002006-06-05T19:00:00.000-04:00I wasn't saying that Arrow says you randomly chang...I wasn't saying that Arrow says you randomly change what a particular individual favors. I'm saying nothing about individuals or randomness. I'm saying that Arrow's Impossibility Theorem says that if there are multiple dimensions, then all political outcomes are unstable in that another outcome would be preferred by the majority. Even with perfect stability of preferences, all coalitions are unstable and should disintegrate the moment they win. <BR/><BR/>I am further saying that we know that this is not the case, and therefore we know there isn't much multi-dimensionality, and therefore I am unclear why bundling is a problem -- for all intents and purposes, the different issues and character traits apparently covary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6737941.post-1148063274222991042006-05-19T14:27:00.000-04:002006-05-19T14:27:00.000-04:00Arrow's Impossibility Theorem merely states that n...Arrow's Impossibility Theorem merely states that no voting system can be perfect (ie, meet the five criteria he establishes). It does not say that voting will be determined randomly as a result of the imperfection.<BR/><BR/>Stablity certainly doesn't mean complacency, either. If a voter values Issue X more than Issue Y, she'll side with the candiate that shares her view on X even if he doesn't share it on Y. (Assuming there's no alternative that's better.) That doesn't mean she changes her mind about how important Y is or what her view on it is.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14364155797420903461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6737941.post-1147719083306551682006-05-15T14:51:00.000-04:002006-05-15T14:51:00.000-04:00I'm totally getting expelled.I'm totally getting expelled.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6737941.post-1147718956877928472006-05-15T14:49:00.000-04:002006-05-15T14:49:00.000-04:00If the problem is really as bad as all that, and e...If the problem is really as bad as all that, and elections really are clumping together a whole bunch of issues and dimensions <I> that shouldn't be clumped and are wholly unrelated </I>, then why do democracies seem so stable? That is, if there are multiple dimensions, shouldn't Arrow's Impossibility Theorem kick in and make all elections a matter of rock-paper-scissors? Doesn't the observed stability suggest that the set of all bundles that people actually want can pretty much be represented on one dimension? And if the issues really are just one dimension, inseparability of candidate traits is irrelevant, right? <BR/><BR/>And on the other hand, doesn't interjurisdictional competition look at least a little bit like a market, even assuming multiple dimensionality?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6737941.post-1147665638805229122006-05-15T00:00:00.000-04:002006-05-15T00:00:00.000-04:00David, I have the same fundamental problem with th...David, I have the same fundamental problem with the entire Wittman-Caplan debate. The multiplicity of issues at play in a quadrennial, one all-or-nothing election strikes me as fundamental to why electoral politics is inferior to the market... and both Caplan and Wittman seem to take it as given that this is a non-issue. <BR/><BR/>You may recall when I asked Caplan about this in class, he said that issues tend to clump together (e.g., that if you know an individual's stance on abortion, you can probably guess his stance on gun control). But as I see it, it's not only issues at play in an election, but also interpretation of historical events, candidate personalities, etc., and by grouping the whole thing into one "accountability moment", there is essentially zero accountability for any one issue or event.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10279135104269687138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6737941.post-1147651396497112472006-05-14T20:03:00.000-04:002006-05-14T20:03:00.000-04:00Oh Ryan you found me out! Curses!But seriously, yo...Oh Ryan you found me out! Curses!<BR/><BR/>But seriously, you're right that most products are package deals so it would be more appropriate to say that politicians are package deals of package deals. The problem remains.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14364155797420903461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6737941.post-1147648061541560782006-05-14T19:07:00.000-04:002006-05-14T19:07:00.000-04:00But most products are package deals, aren't they? ...But most products are package deals, aren't they? If you said that the reason why you believe in the efficiency of the market is because the market consists of products that have only one function, sold by owner-operators, where all activity is divisible and regulated by a pure price mechanism, I'd say you were a closet communist and should be expelled from George Mason on general principle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com