Robin Hanson on voting advice

Robin Hanson has a very interesting post up on his advice on voting. Read the whole thing here.

I'd like to focus on one piece and the counter-intuitive implication:

The thing you probably know best is your own life. So a good simple strategy is to vote “retrospectively,” i.e., for incumbents if your live goes well, and against them if your life goes badly. The more voters who do this, the stronger incentives incumbents have to make most lives go well.

For life quality extremes this advice is clear, but what if your life is near the middle? What should be the cutoff between a good and bad life? One simple reference is how you expected your life to go when incumbents were elected – reelect them if your life has gone better than expected.

The result of this strategy would be for a lot of voters to reject their preferred candidate when that candidate was the incumbent and for a lot of others to vote to re-elect the opposition. The expectation for many is that one's own candidate will right all wrongs and bring near utopia while the opposition will be the one to finally turn the lights out on America. Both extreme positions are obviously wrong in retrospect for many of the reasons Robin describes in the post along with the general truth that there isn't that much change a president, et al. can effect and there isn't much difference between most candidates in most elections.

Is New Orleans an infant baby?

Why is it essential that we know if a tropical storm or hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico is in any way threatening The Big Easy? A casual observer would come to believe New Orleans is the only major city on the Gulf outside of Florida. The news reports make it clear that this must be the major concern regarding weather in that region. I've even come to expect the familiar refrain, ". . . hurricane XYZ, which is projected to enter the Gulf of Mexico threatening the Gulf Coast region including New Orleans". NPR is but one source setting this standard, but it is common to the other national news outlets in all media. No mention is made in particular of Houston despite it being over five times as populated or Mobile, AL, which is about a third as big. Once a trajectory is inevitably set for one of these or many other locations and only then, will we hear that community as part of the standard report.

Of course, it is because of Katrina, and of course, that doesn't make any sense. Look back to the title of the post. Is New Orleans a helpless invalid lying in wait for tragedy to befall it? Is this a commentary on our collective doubt that New Orleans as a community has corrected past mistakes and vulnerabilities? Does it say something about our general doubt in the ability of government at many levels to solve problems and learn lessons? I include in that the possibility that government may have encouraged bad decisions in rebuilding and repopulating New Orleans after Katrina.

Getting political compromise through a new election format

It is commonly said that we live in an atypically divisive era in politics characterized by extreme partisanship and bitter, hostile stalemates. I have my doubts about how atypical this era really is or how bad the consequences really are from it. George Will seems to agree (specifically around the 13 minute mark).

But let's assume too little compromise is a colossal impediment to competent and effective (and desirable) government. What might be a solution? Perhaps a change in how the ruling elite come into power. One not too well fleshed out idea is as follows below. Think about it from a game theoretic perspective with the idea that we are trying to get reliably constructive political compromise between the two major parties. A key assumption is that the public strongly prefers compromise. I'll make the further ridiculous assumption that only the two major parties versions of the same party (Republicans and Democrats) are in contention for election (i.e., I'll ignore all independent parties just like the media does).

Every five years the party out of office makes a decision. It can either:

1. Choose to hold the presidency for certain for two years followed by the opposing party holding office for certain for the next three years, or
2. Choose to have an election with the winner holding the presidency for five years.

Here is my theory on why this brings about compromise. For the party in office in years three, four, and five, being too uncompromising allows the opposing party to choose an election which the opposing party is most likely to win. If that party during it's five-year reign is too uncompromising, an election is sure to follow along with another flip in who holds government. It seems to me that the equilibrium is a revolving two-year, three-year rotation kept alive by the party in power working hard to sell the public on how constructively compromising they are. Of course this is oversimplifying and of course this would just lead to bad politics on steroids as the uncertainty was removed for the political class. My belief is that these guys fighting is a lot better for government than these guys getting along. But I think it is a fun thought exercise, nonetheless.

Fiscal thrill seeking

I'm sure I'll have more to say about the Fiscal Cliff, as the kids are calling it, in the weeks to come. First I'd like to point out a prediction that is itself a logic puzzle. For the moment I am considering only the tax policy possibilities.

1. I believe that the most likely outcome is that no legislative changes occur (the tax increases, resets, etc. are allowed to transpire). 
2. I believe that it is most likely that there is legislative action that alters or avoids the tax increases, resets, etc. in some fashion. 

These two statements may seem to the casual observer to be contradictory. They are not. Re-read them and then check below the fold for my reasoning.

If you build it, they'll make you keep it

Like a bad penny, the infamous Gold Dome of northwest, central OKC is back in the news. It is one of those “classic” and “iconic” architectural features of a neighborhood that is too vital to lose. You know, one of those buildings so important that supporters insist that someone else must (be made to) pay to have it preserved lest a cultural heritage be demolished. It is a classic lesson in be careful how creative you are in what you build; for if ugly enough, it shall never be destroyed.

Okay, so some tastes may have been acquired for it. De gustibus non est disputandum. But that should come with a caveat, solvat aut sedatos esse (pay or be quiet). Sadly, we don’t live fully in that society. But aside from the principled case against this kind of a taking, there is a pragmatic one. Property rights uncertainty begets conservative choices that stifle creativity and experiment. No doubt about it; the Gold Dome as “the bank of tomorrow” was a creative chance taken. It worked until tomorrow came (a few decades later), and then it stopped working. And I can say it stopped working with strong confidence because the best indicator that we have says so. Namely, individuals in the market willing to risk capital were attempting in the 1990s to replace the Gold Dome with another idea. How free that market is largely determines how confident we can be. More on that another day. Suffice it for now to assume that the market was speaking and saying, “it is believed that these resources will be better used if used differently”. The market was denied and may be denied again.

Now let me connect the dots to another “ugly” building in OKC that may stay ugly if that lesson from before is heeded. The thermal plant in downtown OKC needs a makeover according to The Oklahoman’s Steve Lackmeyer. His idea is to turn the plant into “a great canvass for public art or for glitzy Times Square style billboards”. Take something plain and make it not so plain. I could be persuaded. I’m sure the question of who is going to pay for it is more important to me than to Lackmeyer, but again that is not my point here. Clever readers may think I’ve gotten the lesson/analogy from the Gold Dome backwards here, but cleverer readers will know better. The lesson is if you allow your building to be too far out of the norm, too creative, stand too far forward, you run the risk of having something politically powerful people won’t let go away—despite the fact that you own it. Turn the thermal plant into a graffiti mural and then in ten years when the neighboring hotel wants to raze the plant and expand onto the lot that option might not be allowed.

It's spelled Southern Comfort ...

But it is pronounced Kool Bay-Bee:

The Bettor's Oath

An excellent concept. I agree and pledge myself to it.

Hat tip: Bryan Caplan