Even in politics, think it through

So here's my attempt at a non-political, political post.

---

A responsible man (or woman) should think through the consequences of a political stance, before promoting it.
Seems obvious, doesn't it? You wouldn't decide on home renovation, or buying a car, or marrying, without thinking of the consequences. Why do it for politics?

Our political views are a sort of entertainment. (They may also be a token of membership to a group that you like.) But they do matter. If enough people agree with you, you have a fair shot of making something happen. Pity if what happens is the opposite of what you wanted.

So I want to consider some unintended consequences, and what could be done to explore them in advance.

Setting prices

Suppose you think the cost of rail transport is too high. So the government issues a decree: the cost is cut by X%.

If X is sufficiently severe, the rail companies go under and the lines shut down.

If it's not quite that bad, they keep running until something major needs maintenance. Then it's no longer profitable to run the lines, so the company shuts them down.

In any case, companies stop investing in rail, stop building new railways, and go into something else instead, where the profits are better. There's a reason investors put their cash into rail: it seemed like a good investment. Now it's not. Eventually, the plan to reduce rail cost drives the price too high for everyone, because there won't be any railways.

For more along this line, see Economics in One Lesson, the book I stole this example from.

Abolishing the Electoral College

In a US Presidential Election -- skip this paragraph if you already know how this works -- each state has a certain number of electors, equal to the number of Congressmen it has. If the state goes 51% for Candidate A, Candidate A gets all the electors for that state. (Some states used to split their electors, but it doesn't seem to happen any more.) As a result, candidates don't campaign much in states they're sure they'll win: they might get more votes if they do, but it won't matter, since they still get all that state's electors. Similarly, there's no point campaigning in a state you're sure you'll lose. Citizens of states that are considered foregone conclusions sometimes complain that candidates don't need to woo them, and their swing voters can swing all they want; it won't matter.

There are cases of vote fraud in local elections, and there are sometimes cases of vote fraud or mishandling of results in battleground states. But Democrats in Massachusetts (say) don't stuff ballot boxes with votes for their Presidential candidate. They could: there aren't enough Republicans in the state to monitor elections and stop them. But there's no point -- it won't make their Presidential candidate any more likely to win. The same goes for Wyoming: Republicans could easily cheat, but there'd be no reward for it.

The fraud is only worth attempting in battleground states, and both parties look closely to be sure they're not getting cheated. This is possible because both parties are on hand to do so.

Suppose we replace the College with a simple count of all votes cast in the nation. Now every state in the Union is a battleground state: adding a few percentage points in Massachusetts could determine the national outcome. And there's nobody to look over Democrat shoulders to make sure it doesn't happen. Wyoming is in a perfect position to cheat too. And Montana, New York, Hawaii, Utah... if you think your vote doesn't count now, wait till these states invent votes en masse without anyone to stop them.

It's true that parliamentary democracies like the UK don't have an electoral college. Instead, they have Parliament, which acts as an Electoral College for choosing the Prime Minister. They therefore have the same protection against massive vote fraud that the US does.

Limits on fundraising

It makes sense to limit the amount anyone can give to a political candidate. How about a limit on the amount you can give a candidate per year, to ensure the common man has the same voice as the richest mogul?

Since the cost of political advertising remains enormous, candidates must fund-raise for many years before making a successful run. You've just guaranteed that everyone who has a chance at national office has to be an insider with a huge war chest, or a media darling who can woo free coverage from an adoring press, or someone willing to skirt the law.

As recent Presidential elections show, that's exactly what has happened. By trying to get the money out of politics, campaign finance rules ensured that you have to have lots of money to have a chance. And the amount spent keeps on rising.

Of course people pooling their money aren't completely constrained by donation limits. They could run their own advertising without paying a candidate. Except that the McCain-Feingold rules make it a crime to even mention a candidate in mass media 6 months prior to an election, unless you're a candidate, a reporter, or own your own TV stations. (There is the 527 exception, at least for now.) That is... once again, trying to get the money out of politics has ensured that you have to be unbelievably rich or well-connected to get your message out.

Overall...

I don't mean to make anyone despair of changing things. For example, if you want to get the money out of politics, one thing you could do is reduce the amount of money in government, so that it isn't worth anyone's while to spend a fortune on a candidate. Or get more people on Internet, so you can reach them with nothing more expensive than a web presence. If you want to have more influence on the electoral process, write letters, canvas, promote, or run for office yourself. If you want cheaper rail fare, find ways to reduce costs.

All these things are possible and worthwhile. They just aren't easy. The solution that's too good to be true usually is.