Description

Executive Summary
Democracy demands an informed electorate.
Voters who lack adequate knowledge about politics
will find it difficult to control public policy.
Inadequate voter knowledge prevents government
from reflecting the will of the people in any
meaningful way. Such ignorance also raises
doubts about democracy as a means of serving
the interests of a majority. Voters who lack sufficient
knowledge may be manipulated by elites.
They may also demand policies that contravene
their own interests.

The American electorate does not have adequate
knowledge for voters to control public policy.
Scholars have long documented the limits of
voter knowledge about the institutions and policies
of the government. That ignorance is not a
moral failing. The rational voter has little incentive
to gain more knowledge about politics
because his or her vote is unlikely to affect the
outcome. Since gaining more knowledge offers
few benefits and substantial costs, the average
citizen remains ignorant, though rationally so.
Some scholars have argued that citizens use
"shortcuts" to gain enough knowledge to participate
in self-government. The evidence does not
support the "shortcut" argument.

The size of modern government is often so
great that it is impossible for voters--even the
most knowledgeable among them--to be adequately
informed about its operations. Smaller
government may actually be more democratic
than that which we have now: voters would be
more likely to exercise informed control over policy.
Voter ignorance also suggests the value of
decentralized federalism. In a decentralized federal
system, citizens may "vote with their feet" by
moving out of jurisdictions with policies they
dislike and into those that have more favorable
ones. Because each person decides whether or
not to move, there is a much greater incentive to
acquire relevant information with "foot voting"
than with traditional voting at the polls.