Political Ignorance
March 9th, 2009 at 4:00 pm by David FarrarEric Crampton, an economist at Canterbury University, has done a fascinating study based on 2005 NZ Election Study behaviour.
His 33 page study looks at political ignorance. His abstract explains:
Large proportions of the electorate can best be described as politically ignorant. If casting a competent vote requires some basic knowledge of the incumbent’s identity, the workings of the political system, one’s own policy preferences and the policy preferences of the main candidates, many voters cannot vote competently.
Wittman (1989) suggests that, if ignorance is unbiased, overall results will be determined by informed voters as the ignorant cancel each other out. Lupia and McCubbins (1998) provides a mechanism whereby voters with little information can take cues from more informed colleagues in order to vote as if they had the requisite information.
Using data from a uniquely useful dataset, the 2005 New Zealand Election Survey, I show that both mechanisms fail. Political ignorance is not unbiased: rather, it strongly predicts policy and political party preferences after correcting for the demographic correlates of ignorance. Moreover, membership in the kinds of organizations held to allow the ignorant to overcome their deficiencies fails to improve outcomes. Voter ignorance remains a very serious problem.
So how does Crampton decide if someone is politically ignorant? He had five criteria:
- An inability to correctly place National, Labour and United Future relative to each other on the political spectrum. 40% could not place them correctly as National to right of Labour, United Future to left of National and United Future to right of Labour.
- Not understanding MMP, such as thinking the electorate vote is more important than the party vote in determining the composition of Parliament, not knowing the threshold of 5%/1 seat, for thinking FPP is more likely to have the party with the most votes have the most seats, and for inconsistencies such as saying they prefer there be only two parties in Parliament but support MMP.
- Not knowing the term of Parliament, ot knowing enrolment to vote is compulsory and not knowing permament residents can vote (only 28% knew this).
- Not knowing what parties formed the 2002-05 (then current) Government.
- Not knowing the name and party affiliation of their local MP
You can quibble over individual criteria, but overall there is little doubt that those who fail most of these criteria, are not making much of an informed vote. Eric talks on his blog about the criteria here.
An economic ignorance score is also calculated based on their responses to economic questions.
So who is more or less likely to be politically ignorant. The figures below are proportions of a standard deviation, so the higher positive it is, the more politically ignorant that demographic was, and a negative figure means they are less likely to be politically ignorant:
- Follow political news on Internet -0.068
- Active member of Church -0.117
- University educated -.369
- Farming -.377
- on DPB +.149
- Left Wing -0.302
- Thought Govt was good +0.09
So those who actively identify as left wing are far less likely to be politically ignorant, but those who though the 2002-05 Labour/Progressive Government was good were more likely to be politically ignorant.
And how about voting preferences:
In the party support specifications, I restricted the sample to those reporting having voted. When they get to the polls, the ignorant are significantly more likely to support the Labour Party (4% increase in predicted probability for a standard deviation increase in ignorance) and significantly less likely to support the Green party (1% decrease in predicted probability) and United Future (0.5% decrease in predicted probability).
There are lots of otehr interesting facts too:
Other interesting findings include that voters with internet access are less likely to vote but more likely to support National, Act and United Future, that very active church members are about 8% less likely to support National and 5% more likely to support United Future, that Labour’s play for the student vote with zero percent student loans seems not to have paid off as neither current nor former university students were more likely to support Labour in 2005, that Maori were 21.5% less likely to support National in a somewhat racially-charged election, that New Zealand First drew disproportionate support both from superannuitants and from those on family assistance, that those on high incomes weren’t particularly likely to support any party but that the divorced were almost 9% less likely to support Labour and 5% more likely to support the Greens.
And Eric has a useful conclusion:
While I have shown that ignorance causes bias, it would be far too hasty to say that ignorant Kiwis are generally biased towards the New Zealand Labour Party. Results here could simply reflect incumbency bias. Alternatively, the pattern could well be explained under rational expectations where the Labour Party promised to undertake more regulatory measures to protect people from the consequences of their choices, and the politically ignorant could perhaps be more likely to be in need of such protection. Isolation of incumbency effects versus biases towards the Labour Party would require analysis of prior years of the New Zealand Election Survey when Labour was not the incumbent and will be the subject of future work.
I for one very much look forward to the future work – the 2008 and hopefuly the 2011 elections.
Related posts:
- Dunne backs National
- Coalition Preferences
- Coalition Options
- The least surprising decision of recent times
March 9th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Hell, I can’t blame anyone for not knowing where United Future lies on the political spectrum. It all depends who’s asking it to drop it’s knickers at the time!
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
I always thought it was a little far-fetched to say that the Labour party was deliberately creating a culture of dependency because it delivered more votes for them…how wrong I appear to have been.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
on DPB +.149
because it dosen’t metter who the government is at any time, the DPB is still a crap position to be in,
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Have I read this right? Ignorant voters are ‘significantly less likely to support the Green party’.? What does that mean?
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
And this line ‘So those who actively identify as left wing are far less likely to be politically ignorant’ What’s that about?
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Sorry but how does it work that an economist does a study on political ignorance. If this is the work economists are doing, can we burn them at the stake or something.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Well, they never seem very good at doing Economics, except in hindsight, so this is another perfect role for them.
Just as they cannot tell us what WILL happen in the economy, only what happened and (maybe) why, so with elections.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Village Idiot wrote:
That’s consistent with my impression of the Green Party, VI. I’ve long suspected that the Greens are predominantly supported by white, middle-class, middle-aged, liberal, educated voters. For all their self-professed environmental credentials and social justice talk, their voters are primarily former hippies.
That means those who call themselves “left wing” are more likely to be knowledgeable with regards to the five criteria Crampton has set out.
For all the tribalism that goes with partisan politics, left wing activists aren’t stupid. Nor are right-wing activists. It might be fun for people on opposite ends of the spectrum to label each other as such, but it does each of them a disservice. Labour’s attempt to brand John Key as untrustworthy, stupid, and/or inexperienced at the election just doesn’t resonate with voters, who know that you have to be pretty clever to succeed in politics, and becoming the leader of a political party does demonstrate success. Likewise, as much as some on the right would like to brand Helen Clark stupid, she clearly isn’t.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
The report clearly shows the left are stupid.
Vote:This is a global situation too.
Over at Barnsley Bill I have posted a UK survey noting Labour voters more studpid than Tory ones, though the Liberal-Democrats are brightest.
And we mustn’t forget the stupidity of the Obama voters!
March 9th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Just a bit too distracted by his prowess in bed to keep up with politics, eh?
Oh, DPF. My mistake.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
0.369 of a standard deviation is not a hell of a long way away from the mean is it? It would take a brave man to conclude “look! I’ve finally proved all labour voters are ignorant!” from the data titbits we’ve seen here, though that seems to be the aspect DPF is relishing in all of this.
If it turned out “the left wing” were -3.02 (rather than -0.302) away from the mean towards Not Ignorant then I would be impressed.
I predict this will be a very, very active kiwiblog thread in the next few hours with a title like “Political ignorance”. Fairfacts at 4:55pm has given us a stellar example already.
[DPF: I pointed out those who identify as leftwing are less ignorant, and you claim I am relishing showing Labour voters are ignorant. I think you may have proven a point]
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Not sure if forgetting Jim Anderton part of the govt or repressing Winston’s involvement makes someone political ignorant!
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
More evidence that the universal franchise is a bad thing.
The right to vote must be licensed with renewal tests applied frrequently.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
It’s an interesting discussion Ratbiter. I suspect that those who actively describe thmeselves as “left wing” are quite a small number of people, and are much more likely to be activists. It would also be fascinating to see see the “ignorance differential” between the voter base and the activist base.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
The way I read this, is that Sonic, Bork Bork, Mickey Savage, Irish Bill, etc. Are very intelligent, and therefore are deluded, compulsive liars.
Warped by false dawn ideology, and bored by a sterile (read deadly quiet) enviroment on ‘Their Standard’
So they come here to top up the IQ, and gain confidence for their next job interview.
Good luck peoples. Bet you miss the Beehive.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
“So those who actively identify as left wing are far less likely to be politically ignorant”
Well of course. Anyone who defines themselves by their political leanings are far more likely to have a higher than average understanding of politics.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
I remember a very informative study done in the US, on economic beliefs. The things that were commonly understood by almost all economists, like the beneficial effects of free trade, were also understood by almost all of the public who had higher educational achievement of any kind, but were not understood by the majority of the remaining, less educated mass of voters. I’ll see if I can find it and link to it.
But one does wonder if to preserve the benefits of democracy it might be wise to introduce some extremely low qualification test for voters before they can be elegible. Widespread and increasing ignorance is already looking like being the death of democracy in some countries.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
“[DPF: I pointed out those who identify as leftwing are less ignorant, and you claim I am relishing showing Labour voters are ignorant. I think you may have proven a point]”
The left wingers who show up here are almost without exception so exceedingly stupid, and possessed of such minuscule comprehension skills, I sometimes wonder if they have even the faintest clue as to what it really is that they’re voting for.
Maybe that’s the real problem.
They just don’t get what leftism/ socialism really is.
The other thing of course is that right wingers don’t really need much “understanding”.
How nuanced really is “Stop stealing my money, get the hell out of my life, and stay out”?
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Other interesting findings include that voters with internet access are less likely to vote but more likely to support National, Act and United Future
I call that the DPF effect. They are too busy wrangling among themselves on Kiwiblog to vote.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
From the report author- “While I have shown that ignorance causes bias, it would be far too hasty to say that ignorant Kiwis are generally biased towards the New Zealand Labour Party. ”
No its not hasty. I reckon on Kiwiblog its an empirically proven fact.
But wait- there’s more,
“Alternatively, the pattern could well be explained under rational expectations where the Labour Party promised to undertake more regulatory measures to protect people from the consequences of their choices, and the politically ignorant could perhaps be more likely to be in need of such protection.”
So right. The Labour voter- either a political ignoramus or a fucken numb nutted gape jawed idiot who needs gummint to protect them from themselves.
Labour- The Jerry Springer Party.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Village Idiot – I’d hazard a guess that the greens do well on this test of electoral knowledge because as a fringe party they’re more conscious of ‘playing the game’ to weasel their way into power. Especially if there are questions on electorate vote vs party vote, and who made up the last coalition. They probably have it drilled into them constantly about the electorate vote.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
“So those who actively identify as left wing are far less likely to be politically ignorant”
One of the criteria for being considered ignorant was “An inability to correctly place National, Labour and United Future relative to each other on the political spectrum.” So of course if you can identify yourself as left wing you are already on the way to being excluded as “politically ignorant.” Willing to bet the majority of the left wing supporters have no idea that they support the “left.”
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Hagues, there’d be a pretty quick way to survey for leftism. 20 questions (stongly disagree, agree, neutral, agree, stongly agree) in the general form “I believe it is the governments role to …”.
Questions like provide all schools, run TV/Radio stations, provide money for anyone without a job, hate USA/Isreal, give me free lotto tickets etc.
Those with a high score here, but a low score on other economic & political trivia questions would make up the Labour heartland.
The fringle Labour supporters would be (a) the ones not smart enought to answer the survey, and (b) the activists who’s support any totalitarian regime so long as it meant power for them.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
the real stupid ones are the low-income reef-fish who believed the lies of key…
..does anyone remember the promises not to ‘privatise’..?..to ‘close the wage gap’ with australia..?
..w.t.f was that pile of unmitigated horseshit..?
eh..?
..and these stupid reef-fish voted based on the whimsies of ‘change’/a nice smile’..
..thety are the really ‘stoopid’ new zealanders…
..(and hey..!..that lord ashcroft just can’t seem to keep away..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
No phil, the low-income reef-fish voted for the MP or The Greens or didn’t vote at all, because they couldn’t stand Hulun anymore. Reef-fish like all people do lots more to flee from pain than they do to move toward pleasure.
Hulun was pain personified. Some of us knew that in 1999. Took the rest of you guys quite some time to catch up. What’s the matter. A bit slow?
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Philu
Do you honestly believe the way to alleviate poverty is to tax the so called rich and redistribute that money to the poor?
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Tim at 4:53
“For all the tribalism that goes with partisan politics, left wing activists aren’t stupid. Nor are right-wing activists. It might be fun for people on opposite ends of the spectrum to label each other as such, but it does each of them a disservice.”
and 2 minutes later
Fairfacts
“The report clearly shows the left are stupid.”
Brilliant, just brilliant!
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
national ..as the farmers/business party..have always had to persuade enough reef-fish to vote against their own interests..to gain power..
..that is a numerical fact..
..and they usually engage in bare-faced lies to persuade those needed/stoopid reef-fish..to vote for them..
..that is a political fact..
..and..confirmation of that stupidity..is that the script/expose..’hollow men’..had been widely aired..
..and then national just turned around and followed the script..again..
..national are smart enough to know how dumb/numb those reef-fish are..
..and they just play the same riff..over and over again..
..oh..!..how they must laugh..!..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Anybody got a phool interpreter machine? Man that weed must be powerful.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
you say po tay ta
Vote:i say po tar ta, you say
you dumb me smarter
March 9th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
big bruv..
..what are the countries with least crime/’social problems’..?
answer: the scandanavian countries..
..where the rich are smart enough to know/accept the price of social accord..
..is strong social support for those who need it..
..the anglo-saxon societies have really missed the bus on that one..
..and like you..big bruv..
..seem complacent/happy to have an oppressed underclass..
..and the ensuing crimes/costs of desperation/poverty..
..now..that is really doh!-stoopid..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
philu
I will take that as a “yes”
Given that, do you think that if you spent 11 trillion dollars on welfare over a 40 year period you would eliminate poverty?
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
See here’s where you go wrong, phil. Firstly, many reef-fish are intelligent high/middle-income people who just can’t be arsed looking at politics because they think, in their ignorance that it’s boring, and/or that it doesn’t matter to them.
I know lots of them. The majority of people I know in fact, are reef-fish.
Secondly, low-income people actually benefit from well thought out and implemented conservative policies. It’s only your blind hatred of ‘tories’ that prevents you from seeing that because it should be quite obvious to someone with a Masters in Political Studies that this is a self-evident fact. You probably haven’t ever studied Hayek’s economics because you think it’s nasty. I suggest you do, it would open your eyes. Once you have and you understand it, don’t forget to recommend it to The Greens, they could use some of the same enlightenment.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Fraid to say Philu, think you may need to get up to date on the Scandanavian issues.
Singapore has the least crime apparently.
NZ has way too much nasty crime for a tiny population with loads of space.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Ure you odious prick, do you know that every post you make here drips with arrogance, hypocrisy, conceit, insufferable self importance and ignorant presumption to a degree that makes you probably the most offensive poster in the blogosphere?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
Check out your precious “Scandinavian” countries. Then check out Qatar. Where’s your rationale you sad deceitful communist liar and bludger??
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
BTW phil, you do know of course that Jeffrey Sachs, from Harvard initially now at Columbia, who was one of the people who implemented Hayek’s economics across the world and who is extremely well respected, has written a best-selling book called The End of Poverty.
That’s what I’m talking about. You should read it. Bono’s even done an intro. (That’s for the ignorant reef-fish of course so the idiots buy it)
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Redsterbator, I guess your eyesight is too far gone to read the small print on the page you link to:
DEFINITION: Note: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence. Per capita figures expressed per 1,000 population.
All that wanking, so little eyesight.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
“All that wanking, so little eyesight.”
That’s you you odious child, for only one as stupid as yourself could assume any such margin of error would explain a difference that is tenfold. Or explain Japan’s low crime rate. Fuck off you contemptible time and space wasting moron.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
nah red, you can go fuck yourself and your sister (oh hang on, already done that, haven’t you) before I’ll giove you the pleasure of doing anything you might like.
Its not up tome to explain Japan’s low crime ratem, its up to you to explain why you didbn’t reead the discliamer, or if you did, why you;re too thick to undersatnd it.
Take that Rush Limbuagh out ot your eye before you try to remove the Arvie Aspinall from mine.
[DPF: And that is 30 demerits]
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
“nah red, you can go fuck yourself and your sister (oh hang on, already done that, haven’t you) before I’ll giove you the pleasure of doing anything you might like.”
How long is this filth to be tolerated on this blog?
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
“Its not up tome to explain Japan’s low crime rate”
Nobody has asked you to do that. Least of all me. I’m not the least interested in your explanation of anything. Don’t you know that yet you worthless lamer??
” its up to you to explain why you didbn’t reead the discliamer”
I don’t need to explain anything because I read it.
..and as if morons like you haven’t brought the very same issue up when I’ve referred to these stats earlier. Don’t you ever read or remember anything? Only an infantile self obsessed fuckwit like you would make such an unsupported assumption. Fuck off you worthless low IQ waste of time and space.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
borker
You are a gutless lying prick, there is no need to sink that low even for pond scum like yourself.
If you cannot take the hits then you should not be playing with the big boys, I appreciate that Red makes a complete fool of you each and every time he posts but that does not give you the reason to reply with crap like that.
You might want to think about how you have made a complete cunt of yourself tonight, hundreds of people who read this blog are now laughing at you and your little tantrum, the may also be considering how representative you are of the left and reminding themselves that was the exact reason they voted Labour out of office.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Is this the Intelligence of the left? What an idiot.
Billyborker
Vote:nah red, you can go fuck yourself and your sister (oh hang on, already done that, haven’t you)
March 9th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Bork Bork, the true representative champion of the Left.
Goodonya. You have done so much to re-affirm why so many folks detest Labour/NZ1 for all the corruption, and malevolance.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Billyborker
Vote:In the words of your favourite Lefty Margaret Wilson withdraw and apologise.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Interestingly looking at those stats linked to earlier relating to crime stats per capita
3 out of the top 4 have had socialist governments for quite a while – the top of the stats is a drug driven regime …..
clue one of these is God zone
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
“3 out of the top 4 have had socialist governments for quite a while”
Leftists endlessly promote the lie that socialism, due to its core policy of wealth transfer, reduces crime. This is a lie.
As usual, the left promote the exact opposite of reality as the truth.
What socialism actually does is break down morality within society and thereby create an increase in crime.
Socialism, with its inevitable development of the dependency mindset, is a long term recipe for complete social and economic breakdown. It is always only a matter of time.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Doug (64) Vote: 2 1 Says:
March 9th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Billyborker
In the words of your favourite Lefty Margaret Wilson withdraw and apologise.
Well,if redsterbator’s daddy had withdrawn and shot him on the blankets the world would be a better place.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
borker, even by your already low standards your ‘contribution’ this evening has been a disgrace.
push back and find some convincing lies to replace your personal attacks.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
“..Ure you odious prick, do you know that every post you make here drips with arrogance, hypocrisy, conceit, insufferable self importance and ignorant presumption to a degree that makes you probably the most offensive poster in the blogosphere?..”
never mind the quality..
..feel the width..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Well, well, well Billy Borker.
I hope DPF keeps you on here.
You do more for Red’s (our) cause than any of us can, good on ya.
You lefties are shitting yourselves aren’t you, with the blogosphere you and your treasonous mates are totally losing your propaganda campaign.
For the last few years I despaired but reading what Redbaiter has to say, I think there might still be hope for our society if we pull our fingers out and oppose the leaches of the world.
You and your ilk are the parasites.
Red is the drench.
Vote:March 9th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
“..Red is the drench..”
he’s been called a few things..
..that’ll do..tho’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
(mind you..i would lean towards ‘red is the laxative’..)
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 1:11 am
you are all nazis, now go to sleep
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 10:03 am
This study should be titled Electoral System Ignorance. The factors which Eric Crampton listed are just indicators for those who are awake to what they should take into account regarding our voting system when casting their vote!
Those who identify as left wing tend to be more politically indoctrinated…..ahem active, therefore they school themselves up more on the intricacies of the voting system. The rest of us just want to vote then get back to making money.
Mind you, I’m not terribly surprised that dpb beneficiaries are by and large Labour voters. LOL
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Hmmmm…. given the last batch of comments, I think we can conclude that Kiwiblog commentators, regardless of their place on the political spectrum, prefer personal abuse to having a serious political debate.
This is pretty bad though, any form of democracy rests on a reasonably knowledgeable nad sensible population. In a democratic society our political decisions will be as bad as the majority of citizens. We’ve watered dowwn democracy from its conception as a system in which people are involved in decision making and carrying out the administration of those decisions, to one where, once every few years, you choose somebody else to make decisions, and carry out political work, on your behalf.
Instead of calling for tests of people’s knowledge before they vote (any test is bound to be biased), how about requiring decent civics and political education in schools? It’s ridiculous that we entrust people with political decisions and don’t educate them beyond moronic advertising campaigns every three years telling them “if you don’t vote, don’t complain”.
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 11:29 am
“Instead of calling for tests of people’s knowledge before they vote (any test is bound to be biased), how about requiring decent civics and political education in schools?”
Y’know I just don’t get it. What is it with so many New Zealanders that they still display such gormless faith in an education system that is utterly discredited on any kind of real measure?
Mr. Buchanan, the “schools” as you call them are poisonous tools of the collectivists, where students are taught nothng that matters and everything that makes them soft weak malleable subjects for manipulation by big socialist government.
You honestly think that NZ’s democracy can be saved by teaching “decent civics and political education in schools” you need to have a dozen buckets of ice cold water thrown over you to shock you into some kind of reality.
NZ’s schools are the problem. They’ll never be the solution until they are removed from the control of the socialists, and this is something said socialists will fight against with their dying breath.
That you don’t know this demonstrates a degree of political ignorance I find totally inexplicable. What does it take to drag you people into the real world?? How long will you keep your head in the sand and pretend the education system is still working.
Wake up for Christ’s sake, or the democracy that today is only a shadow of what it once was in this country will be gone forever.
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Redbaiter,
Do you know of any schools teaching anything besides capitalist economics?
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Mr. Sproull, I’m not here to be interrogated by wishy washy intellectual wimps with nothing to say. If all you’ve got are infantile questions based on faulty premises, go away. If you’ve got an argument, make it. I guarantee you that if it supports the status quo in any way, I can rip it to shreds in three sentences.
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Redbaiter,
My argument is that since socialism is primarily an economic stance, wouldn’t the infiltration of socialism in the education system be one that replaced capitalist economics with socialism?
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 11:41 am
“While I have shown that ignorance causes bias….”
This conclusion does not seem justified to me. You might as well say the opposite: that bias causes ignorance. Or both may be the result of a third factor.
I think Dazzaman is right. What has been tested here is largely knowledge/ignorance of the electoral system and knowledge of political analysis (eg the left-right distinction).
Here is a good analogy: I like TV programme A and dislike TV programme B. I might be totally stumped if asked to explain the technical reasons for this (as someone with degrees in English Lit and Media Studies might) but my preference is no less valid.
In politics I know damn well that Party A is good and Party B is evil, despite not being able to describe their position on spectrum or knowing electoral mechanics or any other stuff like that.
This is certainly an interesting study. Thanks are owed to the author for doing it. But this is a conclusion too far.
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Oh come on it’s not rocket science. Left wing parties reward losers and punish winners. If you’re politically ignorant you’re probably a loser as well. Therefore the policially ignorant would tend to vote left.
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Ryan Sproull, do you know if there are any schools in NZ that teach anything other than that capitalism is at best a necessary evil that must be kept in check by fascistic state intervention and regulation? Or that needs to be taxed to death regardless of the effect on economic growth? Come to think of it, does any school teach that there is a connection between how well the “capitalist” part of the economy is doing, and the future wealth and well-being of all of us? Does any school teach that FDR’s policies prolonged the great depression? Does any school actually teach the benefits of free trade and free labour markets?
It is a wonder, with all the neo-Marxism and Gaia worship that is endemic in our teaching profession, that we preserve any freedoms at all in this country.
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 11:46 am
“My argument is…wouldn’t the …?”
Its not an argument Mr. Sproull. It is (still- read it for chrissakes) a question, and a question based on faulty premises, incorrect inferences and unsound logic. Why the hell can’t you state what you maintain is the case without any such misleading questions?? What’s wrong with your head?
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Ryan Sproull, what do you think the teaching of “socially responsible” business is based on? Do you think that the erosion of property rights in NZ, eagerly advocated by our teaching profession, is “capitalist” economics?
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Mr Best, yesterday I think you referenced a Lew Rockwell article that addressed the problem of free market principles not being taught in schools. Do you have that reference handy for our obtuse friend?
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 11:50 am
PhilBest,
I don’t really know. It’s a long time since I did high-school economics. But I know they teach capitalism as a matter of fact, and don’t even expose students to ideas of alternatives. They don’t say, “Capitalism is best” or “capitalism is a necessary evil” or anything. To do so would be to suggest the possibility of alternatives. Certainly there’s what you call Gaia worship in schools, but that’s different from socialism.
Thanks for answering seriously, though. Redbaiter seems to be having a bad day, so I figure I’ll just leave her alone.
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Eagerly advocated by economics teachers?
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 11:56 am
You see Phil. You tried so commendably, but all the time wasting fool has are more idiotic questions based on completely faulty premises and with sly and completely wrong inferences. Like most on the left, like most defenders of the staus quo, always too intellectually gutless to make any kind of real argument.
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Redbaiter,
Hush. Adults talking.
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
so pleased to see Borkers disgusting post @ 9.43 has copped him another 30 demerits
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Sorry, diversion to deal with THIS:
philu (3943) Vote: 0 9 Says:
March 9th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
“big bruv..
..what are the countries with least crime/’social problems’..?
answer: the scandanavian countries..
..where the rich are smart enough to know/accept the price of social accord..
..is strong social support for those who need it..”
Well, DUH.
“UN urges Sweden to improve protection of women”
http://www.thelocal.se/6627/20070308/
“Reported rapes soar after law reform”
“……an actual increase in cases and an increase in the willingness to report (rape) has also contributed to the fact that the number of reported rapes has gone up,” it said.
The new statistics come after months of frenzied media reports detailing violent attack rapes across Sweden, including reports in recent days that a serial rapist is on the loose in the northern town of Umeå.
According to BRAA, most rapes are committed by someone known to the victim, while only about 10 percent are carried out by unknown assailants.
Overall reported crimes dropped one percent in 2005 compared to the year before.
Over the past 10 years meanwhile, reported thefts were down nine percent while violent crimes had increased by 35 percent, BRAA said.”
“21 year old arrested for Liljeholmen rape”
http://www.thelocal.se/890/20050125/
“…..statistics from Sweden’s National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande rådet) show that the number of reported rapes against children is on the rise.
The figures have nearly doubled in the last ten years: 467 rapes against children under the age of 15 were reported in 2004 compared with 258 in 1995.
Legal proceedings continue this week in a case involving a 13 year old girl from Motala who was said to have been subjected to a group rape by four men.
A further appeal is expected after the Göta appeal court freed two of the men and gave lenient sentences to the other pair….”
“The Case Of Sweden”
http://vladtepesblog.com/?page_id=1131
“…….The primary reason why I write much about Sweden is because it is one of the most totalitarian countries in the Western world. It is an interesting — and frightening — example of Political Correctness and self-loathing and can as such serve as a warning to others. Most of the problems described here exist throughout the Western world, although there is a difference in degree. The second reason is that Sweden, like my own country, needs some “tough love.” Too many Swedes still cling on to the myth of the “Swedish model” while their country is disintegrating. If Sweden the nation is to be saved — if it still can be saved, I’m not so sure — then Sweden the ideological beacon for mankind must be smashed, because vanity now blocks sanity…….
“……In an article from June 2007 with the title “Summertime — rape time,” Aftonbladet, one of the largest dailies in Scandinavia, linked the spike in rapes during the summer to the warm weather. The official number of rape charges in Sweden has more than quadrupled during one generation, even more for girls under the age of 15.
The rape numbers are being heavily manipulated by the authorities and the media, who claim that the massive increase in rapes is caused by:
A. The warm weather
B. Alcohol,
C. Internet dating sites, and
D. A technical increase due to the fact that women suddenly report rape more frequently than before.
These are the explanations that are mentioned. There is no other…..
“……News website The Local states that members of the only significant (but still small) party in Sweden critical of mass immigration live under constant threat of violence. Sweden is witnessing the greatest explosion of street violence in its history, and a woman is raped every two hours……. ”
That last essay is about 30 pages long, on Sweden’s social problems.
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I’ll make a couple of comments to clear up some of the more important bits of confusion about my paper in the comments section above.
First, I’ll totally agree that my measure of political ignorance is based entirely on various measures of how the political system works. Why do I do it that way? There’s a ton of papers that survey the public and show that people have a really hard time answering basic questions about how their political systems work. They then jump to say that those voters are incompetent and that voter ignorance seriously affects democratic outcomes. But, to my knowledge, nobody has taken those kinds of measures of voter ignorance and checked to see whether they have any power in explaining party preferences or policy preferences after you control for the kinds of things that seem to correlate with ignorance. So what I do is show that these kinds of measures of voter ignorance are important: the effects of voter ignorance are at least as large as the effects of education in explaining party and policy choices. We can quibble all we like about “ideal” measures of political knowledge, but whatever these kinds of surveys ARE picking up is something of real-world importance.
A few folks argued that some bits of the measure either everybody or nobody would know. My measure of ignorance is ordinal rather than cardinal: it ranks survey respondents from most ignorant to least ignorant in terms of ability to answer those questions. So if everybody gets something wrong, it doesn’t affect the ordering.
On ideology and ignorance: First, everybody who’s able to place himself on a left-right spectrum fares better than those who don’t. Among those able to place themselves on a left right spectrum, those self-identifying on the left side of the distribution are significantly less ignorant than those in the center or on the right. I just go where the numbers take me here: I expected that those strongly on the left or strongly on the right would have more political knowledge than those in the center, but it didn’t turn out that way. Second: Tim Ellis asks about distinctions between activists and general folks. Membership in political parties doesn’t seem to affect anything. Those who are members of political interest groups in general are less ignorant, but I didn’t vary that between left and right wing. Why? Mostly because that isn’t what I’m primarily interested in finding out. I want to know whether what’s measured as ignorance in other studies affects voting or policy preferences; I’m less interested in looking at differences between left and right in New Zealand. I suppose that could be another paper some time though: partisanship, ideology and ignorance in NZ. That’ll be a bit down the current queue though.
PhilBest: You’re thinking of Caplan’s work on what makes Americans think like economists: it’s cited in my paper (linked to by DPF, above).
Dazzaman: you’re right that the stuff folks were arguing about in the comments is who’s ignorant; my study’s really focused though on looking at the effects of ignorance on party and policy choice. I just have to spend a lot of time in the first half of the paper building a reliable measure of ignorance and figuring out what else I need to control for in the later specifications.
Sam Buchanan: pretty sympathetic. Education reduces political ignorance. But only education beyond secondary school. The effects of a standard secondary qualification are no different from having dropped out of high school. Having UE in the old system correlates with a slight (but statistically insignificant) reduction in ignorance. It’s only once you get into polytech qualifications or higher that you really start seeing effects on ignorance. Of course, it’s possible that better civics instructions in the schools would help; I’d certainly not oppose such things. But we can’t conclude much about potential effectiveness from the study I’ve done.
s.russell: Of course, all I’ve shown is that those who show up as having a high level of political ignorance are also systematically different from those with a low level of ignorance in their party and policy preferences in ways beyond things like education, income, ethnicity, gender and so on. I think that’s a reasonable contribution to the literature.
If you’ve read the study and have further questions about how I’ve done things, come over and chat with me about it at my blog (also linked to above by DPF). I’m not trying to explain everything about political ignorance in New Zealand though: I’m just trying to show that what folks commonly call political ignorance seems to have real world importance in explaining party and policy choice, and that my measure of political ignorance is pretty reasonable (or at least comparable to what everybody else is doing).
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Of course if you want to look at the issue closely, the whole study is completely flawed by encompassing such subjective base lines as “left wing” and “right wing”.
I’ll wager Mr. Crampton would have immense trouble providing an objective assessment of those terms, and I maintain that those he describes as “right wing” would in reality be centrists, who by that very fact do not take that much of an interest in politics.
Who is your favourite “right winger” Mr. Crampton?
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Redbaiter: folks in the survey were asked to rate themselves on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is most left, 5 is neutral, 10 is right. I coded anybody answering 0-3 as left, 4-7 as neutral, and 8-10 as right: that’s the setup that gives closest to the same proportion of the sample being in the left category as in the right. Among those placing themselves on the spectrum, 755 respondents coded themselves 0-3, 1594 as 4-7, and 617 as 8-10. The cutpoints made for the smallest possible difference in the number of respondents placing themselves into each of the left and right tails. A further 649 respondents answered “don’t know”: that group scored very high on the political ignorance measure, but I didn’t want to use that as a component of ignorance because it’s entirely plausible that somebody identifying as an environmentalist first wouldn’t place himself on a left right axis, or similarly for a libertarian, and I wanted that to be able to be used in explaining party choice later on.
The base lines may well be subjective, but they’re based entirely on individuals’ own self-placement onto that scale, the cutpoints between left-centre and centre-right are set to have about the same proportion of the distribution as “right wing” and “left wing”. Right-left ideological measures are well used in all kinds of studies, with Poole and Rosenthal famously showing that about 90% of roll-call votes in the US Congress can be explained by a simple left-right dimension.
Now, a plausible critique of my method would be that I’ve not picked the same numerical cutpoints for left and right: folks are coded “left” for answering any of 0, 1, 2, or 3 while coded as “right” for answering only 8, 9, or 10. If anything, that means my results are stronger: if I’d shown a big reduction in ignorance for being “right wing” and not for “left wing” with this method, it could be that the more knowledgeable left wingers were being swamped by the more ignorant centrists. But it goes the other way: the “right wing” is both numerically and positionally more concentrated, and is nevertheless statistically indistinguishable from the centre while both score higher on the ignorance measure than the left-wingers.
Oh: on the “not take that much of an interest”: if I sort by left and right wing, both groups score identically on the question “generally speaking, how much interest do you usually have in what’s going on in politics?”
I could spend my whole day here arguing with folks who haven’t read the paper, and I don’t plan on doing that. Folks with serious questions: read the paper first, then feel free to ask away.
Vote:March 10th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Many thanks for your answer Mr. Crampton.
What sparked my criticism was that in the US there is a much wider political discussion, and the spectrum therefore extends (IMHO) to a degree of “right wing” much greater than here. Consequently you do have two distinct groups competing politically, both as intensley interested and well informed, say L for left and R for right, whilst in the middle there is a large group of greys. (G)
I feel that here in NZ, there is only really (in spite of how your respondents identified themselves) groups L and G with perhaps a few Rs but generally regarded as fringe.
The study therefore could be quite correct in its findings regarding the views of the self described right wingers, but given they’re on a real scale only Gs, and therefore not as similarly interested as the full on L and R groups existing in the US, the end result could be skewed.
I’d say that in a few years, when real right wing ideology is more widely adopted, the results would be quite different.
Thanks again for your time.
Vote:March 11th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
You’re arguing that the folks who here are self-identifying as right wing would be classed as centrist in the US, and that political activism depends on an absolute ideological threshold rather than a relativistic one. I’ll agree with you on the first point. But I would have expected that folks on the tails of any distribution, however truncated, would have similar incentives towards political activism.
A good counterargument would be the case where there’s severe skew in the distribution such that the centre is very close to one of the tails and very far from the other. So if the median voter were very close to the furthest right wing person but very far from the furthest left wing person: in that case, the right wing folks would have smaller incentives towards political activism. If that were the case, though, I’d have expected a pattern of self placement the reverse of what we see in the data: I should have had to have aggregated over a greater number of scores in the right tail than in the left tail to get about the same proportions of respondents in each, and I instead had to aggregate over a greater number of points on the left hand side. So, the average self-placement overall was 5.2, the average for left-wingers was 2.0, and the average for right-wingers was 8.7. The average left-winger is then 3.2 points away from centre while the average right-winger is 3.5 points away from centre. I’d have expected a smaller difference for the right wing under your story.
I suppose I could run some extreme bounds tests comparing only folks answering 1 or 2 with folks answering 9 or 10. Let’s check that. … Oh, you’re really really not going to like this. The most extreme left-wingers are 0.15 standard deviations less ignorant than the broader group of centrists while the most extreme right-wingers are 0.15 standard deviations more ignorant than the broader group of centrists. Both results are highly statistically significant. So moving from the extreme right wing to the centre correlates with a reduction in ignorance on par with a third of the effect that you get from moving from less than secondary school to getting a university degree. If your story held, I’d have expected that the most extreme parts of the right tail were less ignorant than the broader group of right wingers as they’d be closer to your version of the true right. But that’s simply not the case here. Sorry to disappoint.
Vote: