On Nov. 7, Carnegie Mellon University celebrated its inaugural Democracy Day featuring a varied list of speakers, a fair highlighting some of Carnegie Mellon’s democratically-involved clubs, and, for many, a well-needed day without classes. Among these events was the keynote speech given by Professor Danny Oppenheimer of Carnegie Mellon’s Social and Decision Science department who discussed the nature of America’s democracy, some of its surprising aspects, and why it works.
To begin, Professor Oppenheimer challenged an underlying belief that people may have about what makes democracies successful. Many think democracies function because of smart voters making smart decisions, who research the issues important to them and each candidate’s stance before voting for the candidate whose platform best aligns with their interests. However, as Oppenheimer noted, this pattern of knowledgeable, logical, responsible voting is seldom seen. In fact, most voters can be characterized by the three I’s: ignorance, irrationality, and incompetence.
To support his argument Dr. Oppenheimer cited multiple studies, including one from New Jersey showing that even seating people in a chair that was leaning left or right could affect the way they voted. One from the U.K. reported that when voters’ ballots were swapped with ones in which all of the opposite choices were made, voters continued to support the selected candidates as if they were their own. Another study showed that people’s voting locations changed the way they voted on key issues such as bills that increase education or public safety spending by 10 percent or more. He also cited election results in which things that should have been arbitrary and minimally impactful were not. For example, in low and medium profile races, something like being listed first on the ballot could bring a candidate victory or at least a slightly larger percent of votes in higher profile races. is it for low and medium or for high?
So, one may wonder, considering all of these shortcomings in the democratic process, how it is that democracies function? Oppenheimer points to two main reasons.
First is the hidden pressures democracies place on their citizens and politicians. For citizens, this occurs largely through procedural justice, because people who believe they can impact the laws that govern them are more likely to follow them. For politicians, this occurs because of their need to appease voters to maintain power. Because politicians can never be sure of exactly what issues voters will care most about, they tend to weigh in on many subjects to conserve voters’ support no matter which issue voters prioritize.
Second is the way that democracies relieve the pressures that may build up inside them during politically divisive times. Because core tenets of many democracies are the freedom of speech and peaceful transition of power, people who feel poorly represented by a current government or policy can freely voice their concerns and attempt to win the next election.
These two factors almost always allow democracies to create better outcomes for their citizens than non-democracies. It has been consistently seen that, when democracies are overthrown, well-being measures sharply decrease.
That being said, democracies aren’t perfectly resilient institutions, and there are some very real threats facing them today. The main one is attacks on the validity of elections. As mentioned before, one of the most important factors contributing to a democracy’s success is that citizens believe their vote counts. Claims that this is not the case can cause real harm.
However, these concerns aren’t impossible to deal with. In a Nov. 8 interview with The Tartan, Oppenheimer noted the importance of addressing all concerns people have with the validity of democracies, regardless of how real they are. When it comes to ways to address these concerns, decision science offers a satisfying answer. The field uses scientific testing principles to analyze what forces actually cause people to make a choice and the underlying motivations for claims such as those regarding democracy’s validity. By doing this, solutions that address the real source of an issue can be better crafted and implemented, which helps sustain democracy.
Leave a Reply