top of page

Popular does not equal good

Today's short blog is on a subject that seems so obvious, but we often fall into logical fallacies around it. Popular does not equal good.


Why do we keep falling for this logic?


Fallacy 1: More people doing it equals better


Humans are tribal beings. If we see other people queuing outside a restaurant we assume they have done their homework and are waiting for some delicious food. This scene, makes us more likely to queue up for the restaurant.


The same is true for so many things. People are more likely to:

  • buy a stock that is going up

  • buy items they see others wear

  • use technology they see others using

  • take on views that their peers express


BUT... We know that is not true. McDonalds sells the most burgers and is therefore the most popular, but is it the best? Other considerations come into play like availability, convenience, price and marketing.


We see this logic, with democracy also. Politicians increasingly use focus groups to work out policies they believe to be popular so that they can propose them to gain votes in elections. This is the definition of populism in my opinion and why people have a problem with the far right and far left. The far right and far left are seen to propose popular policies but ones that if implemented would be very negative overall.


Fallacy 2: People have consistent beliefs


Voters give mixed signals. They want:

  1. amazing public services AND low taxes

  2. to protect the environment but not be restricted in any way

  3. the country to be able protect itself but not spend on the military

  4. minimal immigration but a flexible labour market

  5. lots of freedoms for themselves but lots of surveillance on others

  6. everyone to have a home of their own (but don't build it near me)

  7. Quotas for people like them, but solely merit-based hiring for everyone else


So if you ask people do you want to pay for net zero they will say no, but if you ask them do you care about the future of the planet and the environment they will say yes. Voters cannot be relied upon to be consistent and hence depending on which question you ask, you can get a completely different answer.



Where's the problem?


The problem is that we have fallen prey to cult of popularity i.e. this will land well with the media so we should go with it. Our intuition is trained to popular is good, but above we have shown that where problems have more than one dimension, it's hard for us to make those trade-offs.


I see representative democracy, where people vote an MP or other representative as a compromise between two extreme systems.

  1. The rule by the smart dictator or group of 'experts'

  2. Direct democracy where everyone gets a say on every issue.


The problem with rule by 'experts' is that is could lead to unaccountable and corrupt people misruling without any opportunity to replace them. The problem with direct democracy is that people often do not fully understand or have time to look at every matter in detail and systematically when individuals make choices, they at a population level can get into



So what are our representatives there for?


Our representatives are there to look after our best interests. They represent a lot of people so have to balance the needs and wants and best interests of them. I also think they are there for making the hard decisions for example:

  • Accepting a project where costs are high if the long-term benefits are large

  • Accepting building homes near vocal opponents because it is better in the long term to build the houses, to allow new families to have a place to live

  • Rejecting policies that might look like providing a small gain today for a potential huge loss down the line

  • Looking carefully at policies that have large winners and losers and making sure that the impacts have been carefully thought through


I hope our representatives remind themselves that we are best served if we delegate to them our decision making and in return expect them to consider the wellbeing of our community and country. Part of that is avoiding being unduly biased to their ideology, political party or narrow self interest.


How can we encourage our representatives to represent us?


In my opinion, there are a lot of bad policies out there and they are not limited to any political persuasion, but they fall foul of the expected things from our representatives who are claiming to give us what we asked for. Often they are just not thought through and fail to make the hard decisions. Right now, most western countries are:

  • Spending more than they make

  • Failing to make long term investment

  • Struggling with birth rates

  • Experiencing declining living standards


Yet the menu of options all feel like kicking the can down the road and will have long term challenges we are not preparing ourselves for. How can we simplify working out whether they are doing a good job or not? I think we can mark our representatives against basic tests that help move forward our priorities:

  • Is this helping our debt sustainability (economic growth, borrowing etc)

  • Is this helping someone in the bottom half of society's living standards (public services, wages, job opportunities)

  • Is this helping us improve our demographics (family formation, birth rate, nurseries schooling, caring for the elderly in a caring and cost effective way)


Independently verified expected impacts can be ranked against these tests as policies are being considered. I feel this is a much better way than 'is this a charming person?'.


So what?


Certainly! Here are five summarizing bullet points for your blog:


  1. Popular does not equal good: Just because something is widely accepted or followed does not necessarily mean it is of high quality or beneficial. Whilst we feel popular choices are better, factors like availability, convenience, and marketing often drive popularity more than actual value.

  2. People support inconsistent policies: We want low taxes and high-quality public services, highlighting the complexity of relying upon public opinion.

  3. What should our representatives do?: Representative democracy balances the need for expert decision-making with the dangers of unaccountable governance. Elected officials should make difficult, long-term decisions for the benefit of society, avoiding the temptations of short-term populism and ensuring policies are thoroughly considered and beneficial.


Next week "What should be our focus?". Don't forget to sign up to the blog Blog | Deciders (hartejsingh.com).


Democracy series

コメント


bottom of page