Detailed Abstractions

Friday last week, I posted random links including a short story about the current Senate race between Carly Fiorina & Barbara Boxer (here):

…In what has to be either a sign of the end times or a sign of our bright future, Senator Barbara Boxer is in a tight race against former HP CEO Carly Fiorina…

While the true impact of the 2010 midterm elections is still ultimately up to a vote which hasn’t happened, the signs seem to all be pointing to good news based upon selectorate theory (DA post here):

..the theory is also powerful due to its simplicity.  It states that leaders will pay back those people that helped them become leaders in order to stay leaders.  This seems fairly intuitive and agrees with most understanding of incentives, but from here they can make predictions based upon the ration between what they call W, the Winning Coalition, and S,the selectorate or those who can affect who the leader is….

…The corollary with W/S is that when W is small as compared to S, the revenues spent will be mainly private and conversely if W is large compared to S, expenditures will be mostly public….

The basic idea is that the leader will use their power to pay back those who helped them get elected and the larger that coalition is, the less likely that money can come in the form of direct payoffs.

Now theoretically, in a free election system, W is 1/2 of S + 1.  IE – in order to get elected I need 50% of the votes plus one.

What happens however, if the voters through their actions artificially limit W?

How can they you ask?  Easily actually.

Every 10 years post census, each state will redraw district boundary lines based upon population numbers.  The problem is this “redrawing” isn’t done based on some objective science or even just basic math, but based on politics.  The way it currently works is the party in power redraws the districts.

Typically, the only ones who argue against these plans are the parties out of power.  Historically, the minority party would go to court, but courts have answered these challenges by stating that unless specific acts of discrimination or such can be proven, political redistricting is not something the court will actively change.

The reasoning is that voters have recourse already, so legally speaking the point is moot.  Their recourse is to elect those who redraw the district boundaries.

Now in states that change majority party from time to time, there are incentives for politicians to not gerymander individual districts too badly, least they be on the receiving end next time.

However, in states like CA or TX, where one party dominates, there are no incentives for the party in power to do anything but draw district boundaries in such a way as to ensure they can maintain power.

This is how we end up with politicians like Barbara Boxer or Nancy Pelosi, who win their individual districts in landslide elections, but whose national approval rating is slightly higher than the IQ of a prune.

This is also the reason (here) “polls showing voter disgust, such as the dismally low congressional approval ratings, only show feelings.  The reality is even with rates of congressional approval as low as 16%, the rate for the election of incumbents is well over 90%.”

But his only works through voter ignorance.  The reality is voters are free to vote for whom they want.  Just because a district is redrawn to include mostly Democrat supporters, doesn’t mean those voters must vote for the Democrat.

We know the truth however for many voters is party loyalty and party identification are much stronger forces in their life than political analysis.

There are reasons for this as well, including the sheer complexity of the government itself.  This level of complexity means for a voter to be truly informed, a good deal of time is needed to sort through the information.  Time most people would rather spend with their families after work.  But I digress…. (read more about The Myth of the Rational Voter here via Cato)

The point is that while voters don’t have to vote party loyalty, the evidence is very strong to suggest they do.

Therefore - back to W/S as a ratio – if voters allow a district to always put a Democrat (or Republican) in that seat, they are effectively making the general election a formality whereas the real election is during the primaries.

This combined with the facts that primary voters represent a very small percentage of total voters & primary voters tend to be true believers, results is an artificial reduction of W in our ratio of W/S, ultimately reducing voter power.

While I tend to stay away from any predictions, the current trending of certain national Senate and Congressional races is showing a promising sign of reversing this trend for at least one election cycle.

Of course for now, these are only polls.  They only tell us what people think during a given time period and nothing more.  The true test for voters will be on election day:

Will voters stand up against incumbents?  Or will they do what they’ve done for the past couple of decades; complain about the worthless government while simultaneously voting to keep the same government?

Over @Rueters Blog, Felix Salmon has a recent post titled, Why the Plutocrats will return where he makes an interesting point:

…Remember too that when you have a progressive tax system, especially when there are surcharges on people making seven-figure incomes, you also have a system where for any given level of national income, the greater the inequality, the greater the government’s tax revenues. And indeed federal revenues have been rising faster than median wages for decades now, thanks to the rich getting ever richer….

Now I don’t believe in a big conspiracy, but I do pretty much believe in the selectorate theory… I say pretty much only because I’m still digesting all the information as well as the proofs, but basically the theory utilizes game theory and historical data to model political institutions, governments, leaders, etc, etc & their behaviors.  It has also been used as a predictive tool for the CIA, DOD, and others through one of the primary author’s (Bruce Bruce Bueno de Mesquita) work with amazing accuracy (here).

As one who loves understanding critical thinking, I was at first very skeptical towards the idea that math could model international predictions well.   Which isn’t to say I think math is limited, I do not.  For instance, I firmly believe that if we could ever measure all the variables in a dice throw, we could accurately predict the outcome.  Therefore the issue isn’t one of math, but of the ability to model such complex systems.

For the die throw, it’s an issue of accuracy.  Sure, we know the air pressure to the thousandth degree, but why not the millionth?  Billionth?  For predictions through modeling behavior, the complexity is not only accuracy since people’s motives aren’t always clear, but in the interactions with additional groups of people as well.    The number of interactions which might be analyzed in a group of only 5 people is 120, with 6 – 720, with 535 people in congress…. 535!

With computers of course we can crunch very large data sets these days in smaller and smaller amounts of time, but the theory is also powerful due to its simplicity.  It states that leaders will pay back those people that helped them become leaders in order to stay leaders.  This seems fairly intuitive and agrees with most understanding of incentives, but from here they can make predictions based upon the ratio between what they call W, the Winning Coalition, and S, the selectorate or those who can affect who the leader is.

To start with, we assume the leaders real ability to incentivize those in the winning coalition is to tax and spend.  They bring in revenues and use those revenues in such a way as to stay in power.  The have only two ways to allocate those resources, either through private expenditures or public spending.

The corollary with W/S is that when W is small as compared to S, the revenues spent will be mainly private and conversely if W is large compared to S, expenditures will be mostly public.

So if we take mainly free societies of today, where the selectorate is made up of the voting population which is usually only constrained by age, the winning coalition is theoretically 50% + 1 voter of the selectorate.  Due to the shear size of W in this case, the leaders incentives line up with public spending because she would be unable to to spend enough on each member of the coalition privately to ensure re-election.

Conversely in more closed systems, where the selectorate is controlled to a great deal (Iran, China, etc) and even if you are a member of the selectorate, the winning coalition is controlled and smaller, spending private money can keep the smaller coalition in tact.

Following the model and Mr. Salmon’s post on returning to a plutocracy, it makes sense that putting people into poverty can actually align with the incentives of our government.  The more people in need of assistance means keeping power is easier as more people are in need of the public expenditures.

I’m not saying I agree with all of this it total just yet, but at first glance Mr. Salmon’s intuitive thoughts seem to be backed up by known game theory modeling to present a interesting conclusion which I think goes to further underscore the idea that limited government is required for long term societal health.

Since the Cap & Trade bill is getting hammered from quite a few angles throughout the halls of Congress, recent news has started pushing the much fated plan for Health Care.

They do this, by first admitting the need to increase the insured, the move to hyping the number of uninsured individuals, and finally discuss plans on how to insure them.

For serious thought – Cato and others have noted that the system itself is creating our current problems and by expanding the current system, we will only expand those problems(here):

A free-market approach would move away from employer-provided insurance and increase competition among both insurers and health providers.

Going further of course, they try to give some reasons the system operates as it does:

There are two key components to any free-market healthcare reform. First, we need to move away from a system dominated by employer-provided health insurance and instead make health insurance personal and portable, controlled by the individual rather than government or an employer.

Employment-based insurance hides much of the true cost of healthcare to consumers, thereby encouraging overconsumption. It also limits consumer choice, because employers get the final say in what type of insurance a worker will receive. It means that people who don’t receive insurance through work are put at a significant and costly disadvantage. And, of course, it means that if you lose your job, you are likely to end up uninsured.

Changing from employer-provided to individually purchased insurance requires changing the tax treatment of health insurance. The current system excludes the value of employer-provided insurance from a worker’s taxable income. However, a worker purchasing health insurance on his own must do so with after-tax dollars. This provides a significant financial reward for those who have employer-provided insurance. That should be reversed….

Not to be locked out, John Stossel just wrote a piece over at Reason giving the reader very colorful examples of how the current insurance system has actually done more harm to having efficient and cost effective medical care than any other piece of legislation on health care (here)

…Insurance, whether private or a government Ponzi scheme like Medicare, means third parties pay the bills. When someone else pays, costs always go up.

Imagine if you had grocery insurance. You wouldn’t care how much food cost. Why shop around? If someone else were paying 80 percent, you’d buy the most expensive cuts of meat. Prices would skyrocket.

That’s what health insurance does to medical care. Patients rarely even ask what anything costs. Doctors often don’t know. Often nobody even gives a damn. Patients rarely ask, “Is that MRI really necessary? Is there a cheaper place?” We consume without thinking.

By contrast, in areas of medicine where most patients pay their own way, service gets better, while prices fall.

Take plastic surgery and Lasik eye surgery: Because patients shop around and compare prices, doctors work hard to win their business. They often give customers their cell-phone numbers. Service keeps increasing, but prices don’t. “In every other field of medicine, the price is going up faster than consumer prices in general,” says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis. “But the price of Lasik surgery, on average, has gone down by 30 percent.”

And honestly, I encourage everyone to read what they can, because this is the very beginning.  Through an extensive societal system, we limit the number of doctors graduating each year.  We, by law, force doctors to do certain procedures lesser trained individuals might be able to do for my less money.  If you recall, 10 years ago, a fully registered nurse (RN) had to draw blood.  Now, it’s a 6 week course and they’re called phlebotomy techs.

So yes, Mr. Obama: I and millions think our health care is pretty good, but could use some changes.  We just don’t think the government has proven to be more inefficient in any endeavor when compared to a private company has in that same endeavor (excluding government allowed monopolies).

The only real question – is why are we looking for several trillion dollars, which will be pushed into all these different feel good remedies, most of which will show no measurable improvement?

And therein lies the selectorate theory, which basically reads that heads of states and other major players got to their positions of power through a winning coalition of others and those are the people they will be the first to covet.

As for those people that didn’t vote for Mr. Obama, and are therefore not in the winning coalition, well, they’ll get hurt.  It’s just too bad that my daughter someday will feel the pain from not being apart of that winning coalition, even though she was completely unable to vote.