Max Tallberg
Given all the points I raised in my previous text, it may not come as a surprise that studies on the political knowledge of ordinary citizens in the United States have produced some troubling results. For example, in 1985, only 59% of Americans knew whether their state governor was a Republican or a Democrat. In 1986, only 49% knew which country had used nuclear weapons. Clearly, it’s concerning how little many people know about politics. And this level of knowledge has not changed significantly over time.
Recent changes in mass media, and especially the rise of social media, have further reduced the influence of traditional news sources. This shift can also be seen as diminishing the role of well-researched and independent information.
Some studies have concluded that at least 25% of voters lack any real political knowledge. In addition to them, there are people who don’t vote at all and who fall into the same category. At various points in time, many Americans have not known which party controlled Congress. Additionally, in 2010, for example, many Americans overestimated the portion of the federal budget that goes to foreign aid.
If many people don’t even understand the basics of politics, it’s no surprise that they’re even less informed about more complex societal issues. There is considerable evidence suggesting that most people living in democratic societies are disinterested in politics, poorly informed, and either unwilling or unable to express coherent political views or preferences.
For this reason, it’s worth questioning the assumption that elections accurately reflect the ideological preferences of the public. In reality, those in power are often able to promote their own agendas, or those of their parties or interest groups.
Moreover, political leaders are frequently judged based on events outside their control, such as natural disasters. Many people are simply too busy with their daily lives to dive deeply into political issues.
Research also shows that in the U.S., voters tend to reward or punish politicians based on whether their personal incomes have gone up or down. Even more striking is that voters usually focus on the months just before the election, rather than the economic performance over the entire term. This means that broader policy impacts or long-term developments are often overlooked.
Some political theorists argue that, from the perspective of modern democratic theory, election outcomes are largely random. They suggest that we should no longer evaluate democratic outcomes using outdated frameworks. According to this view, election results are “random” in the sense that they are not strongly linked to actual policy decisions or public opinion about those policies—but rather to the economic mood during the final weeks before the election. This is one conclusion drawn from studying U.S. politics.
Perhaps, thus, the most central question for the functioning of democracy is whether a democratic society can make good, rational political decisions—ones based on research, respect for human rights, and moral sustainability. Democracies should especially be able to make decisions that are reasonable and beneficial for society as a whole, even if they face opposition from certain groups.
As I mentioned in the previous text, the general level of public education plays a crucial role in all of this. Modern Western societies, however, increasingly emphasize superficial concerns such as consumerism, fame, and other attention-grabbing distractions. These often simplify reality and offer seemingly appealing solutions that have little to do with truth or genuine well-being.
Another major issue is the ability of the wealthy and powerful to influence public discourse and media narratives. Lobbying is a particularly clear example of this.
Voters also tend to focus too much on irrelevant qualities when evaluating politicians. In the context of U.S. presidential elections, it has been said that voters often choose the candidate they’d most like to have a beer with. Charisma and humor receive far more attention than decision-making skills, judgment, or actual expertise.
Related to this is the problem that many ministers or cabinet members are placed in charge of departments in which they have no prior experience. This, too, raises questions about the depth and seriousness of modern democracy—not just among voters, but also in the media and among politicians themselves.
In many established democracies, people tend to take democracy for granted and forget that it requires ongoing effort to preserve and strengthen.
In response to these challenges, some have proposed that democracy should rely more heavily on argument-based decision-making and political neutrality. One suggestion has been to guarantee equal campaign budgets for all political candidates, with strict limits that no one could exceed.
At the same time, efforts should be made to limit the influence of extremely wealthy individuals and to curb lobbying. Media neutrality also deserves much greater attention. Still, as long as the majority of voters lack deep political understanding, even these changes may not be enough to ensure the election of the best candidates.
Ultimately, the key factor in a functioning democracy is whether it can produce rational, well-founded decisions. That is the theme I will focus on in my upcoming blog posts.
Sources:
Achen, C. H. & Bartels, L. M. (2017). Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton University Press.
Brennan, J. (2017). Against Democracy. Princeton University Press.
