« Department of Yikes | Main | The market for lemmas »
So You Think You Can Be President?
Our system for choosing presidents doesn't work very well. Voters are woefully uninformed on the most basic of issues and many end up voting on whim. I don't think restricting the franchise is a good solution, however. A better idea is to create procedures that encourage voters to become better informed. Our current institutions for providing information are lousy. Debates, for example, are boring, the politicians don't answer the questions and most importantly the voters don't know what a good answer is.
(If the voters, for example, don't know the difference between Sunni and Shia then how can they distinguish foolish and uninformed approaches to foreign policy from intelligent and informed approaches? And if the voters can't tell who is uninformed from who is informed then politicians have little incentive to become informed.)
Thus what we need is a way of conveying information to uninformed, unsophisticated voters in a way that is entertaining yet produces information about politicians that is correlated with real skills.
I suggest a game show, So You Think You Can Be President? SYTYCBP would have at least three segments.
Coase it Out: Presidential candidates have 12 hours to get a bitterly divorcing couple to divide their assets in a mutually agreeable manner. (Bonus points are awarded if the candidate convinces the couple to stay together.)
Game Theory: Candidates compete in a game of Diplomacy. I would also include several ringers - say Robin Hanson, Bryan Caplan and Salma Hayek. Why these three? Robin is cold, calculating and merciless - make a logical mistake and he will make you pay. Bryan is crafty and experienced. And Salma? I couldn't refuse her anything but presidents should be made of stronger stuff so we need a test.
Spot the Fraud: Presidential candidates are provided with an economic scenario (mortgage defaults are up, hedge funds are crashing, liquidity is tight). Three experts propose plans. The candidate must choose one of the plans. After the candidate chooses, the true identities of the "experts" are revealed. One is a trucker, another a scuba diver instructor and the last a distinguished economist. Which did the candidate choose?
Entertaining? Check. Correlated with important skills for governing? Check. Can the voters tell who the winner is? Check.
What segments for So You Think You Can Be President do you suggest?
Addendum: Yes, I am serious.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on August 22, 2007 at 07:21 AM in Economics, Political Science | Permalink
Comments
That would certainly be entertaining, but I see two major problems with the idea:
* I'm not convinced that a well-informed electorate will produce a better outcome than the current system.
* What incentive would there be for candidates to participate? Debate formats are generally agreed upon by all participants, so efforts by skilled debaters to make the debates more interesting are always stymied by the lesser skilled candidates.
I would definitely watch this if it was on TV, though.
Posted by: Brien at Aug 22, 2007 7:37:25 AM
Brien,
"What incentive would there be for candidates to participate?"
"I would definitely watch this if it was on TV, though."
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Aug 22, 2007 7:51:43 AM
I am not so sure that what appears as individual irrationality at the individual level translates into irrationality at the macro level. There are many studies that seem to indicate that (excuse the phrase) macro polity acts quite rationally. For example when members of congress get to far out of step with their district they are defeated (Canes-Wrone, Brady, Cogan APSR 2004). Now how this exactly happens is still unsettled I think Erikson, Mackuen, and Stimson's "Macro Polity" lays out the puzzle of micro irrationality v/s macro rationality well, but ultimately I find their explanation unsatisfying.
So I think it is an open question as to whether the system really "doesn't work well".
Besides with all we know about the median voters level of knowledge on the major policy areas (economics, foreign policy etc). Do you REALLY want them paying more attention to politics or less?
Posted by: GoodneesOfFit at Aug 22, 2007 7:54:32 AM
Alex, you're right, there would be increased visibility for candidates who participate. But those candidates would also run the risk of losing a board game to Salma Hayek. I think most candidates are so averse to embarrassment that they would decline to participate.
Posted by: Brien at Aug 22, 2007 8:00:50 AM
The only real solution is to reduce to an absolute minimum the role of a government in anyone's life. There is no good way to select rulers, but there is a need for an authority perceived by the masses to be legitimate, to keep the evil fearful. Any truly wise philosopher-king would know he is not just fallible but powerless to do good in any but the most limited sphere.
Posted by: Robert Speirs at Aug 22, 2007 8:06:27 AM
Two questions, or rather, one question and one comment.
Q1: Why the bonus points if the candidate convinces the couple to remain together? (I fear that might entice facile populisms of the kind one wouldn't want in a ruler).
Q2 (or C1 really): There is no evidence that errors cancel out in the aggregate as Stimson et al. assume. In fact, there's evidence that the errors of the "know nothings" are systematic (as the psych literature suggests).
Posted by: 2Qs at Aug 22, 2007 8:10:56 AM
Speaking as an economist, were I to poll three distinguished macroeconomists on solutions to our current mortgage problem, they would likely give three distinctly different answers. How can we claim that a presidential candidate should choose the advice of one of them?
Posted by: craig at Aug 22, 2007 8:12:53 AM
my boyfriend had this idea a few weeks ago! he wants to make the current debates more of a game show where the audience votes on who gave the best answer to each question and candidates are eliminated from the debate until there are only two left and they have a one-on-one session. i think we would see more of the people we don't usually hear from, and less of the ones who are plastered to the insides of our eyes (ahem, clinton, obama, edwards, ahem)
Posted by: susie at Aug 22, 2007 8:17:24 AM
Worse, a candidate who chooses the truck driver's plan may get credit in the eyes of voters, particularly if that plan involves distributed costs and concentrated benefits, no matter how harmful it might ultimately be. There's also American anti-intellectualism to consider. Agreeing with the egghead makes you an egghead and we all know that nerds get picked last for dodgeball. And that's basically how this is approached in the broader electorate.
Posted by: Sandy at Aug 22, 2007 8:22:01 AM
Wouldn't the show become the focus for lobbying by rent-seekers?
I'm sure everything would be fine while Alex Tabarrok is in charge, but once he retires I can imagine the producers being bribed to ensure that the economist explains why his plan to raise import tarriffs or farm subsidies is a splendid idea that every right-thinking person should vote for.
Posted by: Andy Wood at Aug 22, 2007 8:28:46 AM
I think this is a great idea. American Idol style shows work best when they are choosing someone for a job for which superficial qualities traditionally determine success. (For singers, style and looks; for politicians, fund raising and popularity). The show is actually able to find very talented people and give them the superficial stuff to make them popular.
And you wouldn't have to convince candidates to join the show. In fact it would be best to ignore the normal candidates. I am sure there are many people in many different fields who could do a better job at being president than someone who best skills are at schmoozing and fund raising like a lifelong politician. The show's winner could compete against the Democratic and republican nominee, and probably win. Another benefit would be the winner's lack of ties to donors or a political party. The politicians we've had historically who were famous or rich from some endeavor besides politics have turned out very well: Reagan,Schwarzenegger, Bloomberg + all the founding fathers.
The only problem I see is hat as our campaign laws are now, it might be illegal for a TV network to run the show since it would be giving extra airtime to one specific candidate.
Posted by: Will Perkins at Aug 22, 2007 8:29:34 AM
Game Theory: Candidates compete in a game of Diplomacy
Spring 09: Fleet Afghanistan CONVOY Army Iraq->Pakistan.
Posted by: Barack Obama at Aug 22, 2007 8:35:10 AM
"Spot the Fraud" doesn't work. Too many "distinguished economists" are frauds and would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan than that proposed by your average trucker. Present company excepted.
Posted by: Tom Kelly at Aug 22, 2007 8:38:48 AM
In addition to the disagreement among economists craig
reminds us of, there are some cases where the answer of a
truck driver may be better for us than the answers of the
economists. This is particularly true of issues where non-
economic effects are involved. Immigration being the
current commonly debated example.
If we ignore the effects on crime. culture, schools, and
welfare, then open borders are the most economy improving
answer.
But taking them into account it is not clear that open borders
are economically optimal.
And it is also possible that more people who are now citizens
would prefer the lower per citizen GDP and greater domestic
tranquility that might come from closed borders.
John
Posted by: Shakespeare's Fool at Aug 22, 2007 8:42:50 AM
The game show idea is good: but expecting the candidates to play is wrong. The purpose of the game show would be to educate the public about the issues.
For example, the show "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" has the section where three putative news stories are brought up, but two are fictitious. The idea is to guess which is the real one. For sufficiently non-ideological issues (ie. fact based), this could be beneficial. For example, did Al Gore say he invented the internet?
You three contests all are too lengthy. They would necessitate a "Survivor" kind of presentation after the fact. In addition, candidates would need to function with their teams, else it would be unrealistic. And Survivor-like series work by manipulating the audience emotionally, rather than encouraging rational decision making.
So instead we should have games like "where does the propaganda come from?", "who's funding the propaganda?", "who benefits?", "spot the corporate connection", "what false assumption is the economist making?", "why should we believe that crap?", etc.
Posted by: Mike Huben at Aug 22, 2007 8:45:00 AM
How about this: Unbeknownst to contestants, anyone who signs up to be a contestant is disqualified from ever holding public office.
Posted by: lardlad at Aug 22, 2007 8:48:54 AM
I know that I will get verbally shot for saying this on this website, but one real world idea that seem to work is well financed public service TV.
From my comparative experience between virtually no-public service, public service in decline, and well financed and established public service, I have found that understanding of political issues is clearly higher in the later context. And the quality of public debate is much much higher. Admittedly my experience is only from wealthy and stable democracies.
Fire away! But please no knee jerk defenses of pure free market in the media from those Americans who have no perspective on which to build an opinion. Thats is anybody whose idea of media diversity is the difference between Fox and CNN.
Posted by: aaron_m at Aug 22, 2007 8:53:07 AM
Forget the AC/DC experiment on bargaining efficiency, how can we get Salma Hayek to participate in an experiment to determine the impact she has on bargaining efficiency?
Posted by: AZ at Aug 22, 2007 8:54:11 AM
I agree that this is an excellent idea.
Posted by: Zach at Aug 22, 2007 9:02:45 AM
...I didn't think anyone in the world but my gaming group still played Diplomacy. Of course, such a game would likely be a multi-day affair, which would ruin it for television.
I'd like to see a segment where unknown to the candidate, professionals conspire to ruin their life for a day - let air out of their tires, splash with puddles, etc. Just to see how they'd react.
Posted by: Andrew at Aug 22, 2007 9:05:08 AM
How about having them compete head-to-head in a game of Civilization IV? Start them with approximately equal civilizations and see who comes out on top. Plenty of opportunity for diplomacy, economic policy, military campaigns plus lots of treachery - just like the real world! Seems like a much better system than the current one, not to mention cheaper. The whole thing could be broadcast over the Internet.
Posted by: Ned at Aug 22, 2007 9:11:30 AM
I have always been impressed by the focus of US media on candidates' opinions about important issues. It's SO refresing to open an American newspaper and see a detailed analysis instead of the infotainment that media in my country are full of. Also, and perhaps more importantly, the US blogosphere is unparalleled. Wouldn't it be a viable solution to stop encouraging the politically lethargic part of the population to vote? I'd assume that exactly these voters are rather fickle and impressionable. With a turnout around 50 %, wouldn't a large part of "undesirable voters" be excluded? Am I naive or, God forbid, élitist?
Posted by: J. at Aug 22, 2007 9:12:19 AM
Spot the fraud is not necessarily about choosing the better plan it's about spotting the fraud. A candidate who can't tell the difference between a distinguished economist/scientist/country expert and a non-expert isn't a good candidate since Presidents must use this skill all the time.
Remember also that we need the results to be correlated with good skills they don't have to be perfectly correlated.
Finally, I want to see more suggestsions for segments! (Kudos to Andrew for his suggestion). What skills do Presidents need and how do we test for those in a way that is entertaining and that there is a clear winner that voters can recognize.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Aug 22, 2007 9:14:59 AM
Addendum: Yes, I am serious.
For certain values of serious, at any rate. I'm glad to see you've taken to heart my recent advice for you to post more.
Posted by: eddie at Aug 22, 2007 9:24:18 AM
I would like a Jeopardy segment...but replace Trebek with Walter Williams.
Posted by: Eli at Aug 22, 2007 9:24:25 AM
