Slashdot Mirror
How Voter Shortsightedness Skews Elections
sciencehabit writes "'Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?' Ronald Reagan's famous question in the U.S. presidential election of 1980 is generally a good yardstick for picking a candidate, or at least for judging a leader's economic policies. But few voters follow it. Instead, they are swayed by economic swings in the months leading up to the election, often ignoring the larger trends. Why are we so shortsighted? A psychological study of voting behavior suggests an answer and points to a simple fix. ... Healy and Lenz challenged their subjects to evaluate hypothetical governments based on slightly varying information. For example, some received information expressed as yearly income while others received the same information expressed as a yearly growth rate. The same information in a plot of steadily increasing average personal income over 3 years—$32,400, $33,100, $33,800—can also be expressed as a steadily decreasing rate of growth—3%, 2.3%, 2.1%. That did the trick. Just changing the units of the data was enough to cure voter fickleness. When economic trends were expressed as yearly income rather than rates of change, the subjects made accurate judgments. But if the same information was expressed as a change over time—the bias reappeared."
Most of the GINI coefficient increase since Reagan happened during the Clinton years - when the tech boom/information age started. Trickle down actually worked given the huge increase in median income experienced during the Reagan years. From 1981 to 1989 median income went from ~$45K to ~$50.5K, a solid 10% increase over 8 years. It's increased up to ~$52K since then, a paltry 3% over 25 years.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Informative? Seriously?
LynnwoodRooster seems to have been betting that by stating a lie while providing a couple of links (that refute the lie) most people will assume that that the links actually support it.
If you follow the GINI link you will find that the both the pre-tax and after-tax GINI DID NOT INCREASE AT ALL during the Clinton years! The rise under Reagan went flat, then resumed its rise again under Bush.
Also actually look at that median HOUSEHOLD (not individual) curve LR links to. By the end of the Reagan-Bush era it was down to $48K (from 45.5K at the start), a far less impressive 5.5% over 12 years, and the whole reason for the rise was due to the second adult in the household going to work - since actual wages were flat.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
A vote by a black person, once allowed at all, was only counted as three-fifths (3/5) of a white vote.
A vote by a free black person was counted as one vote just like any other. It was the non-free persons whose numbers only counted for 3/5ths in the apportionment of representation in the national congress. They didn't get to vote, but the slave owners did, and their votes counted more, on the backs of the oppressed, than they ought to have.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Then where **do** they get their information?
Let's hear it. List it out. Explain an alternative.
I am open to what you have to say but I know that whatever you say will most likely have the government, a private corporation, and/or the 'news media' involved in how you obtain it in some way.
All 3 of those would get the standard trolling response on /. of, "...pssht...you trust X? your an idiot"
(X being govt, biz, or media)
So stop the nonstop counterpoint bullshit...save that for Nye/Ham...how would someone get reliable information, say, for Hurricane Sandy Relief efforts and if any corruption has turned up???
Hurricane Sandy accountability...how would i get that the 'non-idiot' way?
Thank you Dave Raggett