Get used to losing elections, and learn to love the kludge

Here are two items to mull over as we wait for election returns from across America. First, researchers have discovered that people who follow politics are not happy about being on the wrong side of election results. From “The Intense Well-Being Consequences of Partisan Identity” (PDF):

… we show that partisans are affected two times more intensely by their party losing the U.S. Presidential Election than both respondents with children were to the Newtown Shootings and respondents living in Boston were to the Boston Marathon Bombings.

Advertisement

The study raises a lot more questions than it answers. Marginal Revolution’s Alex Taborrok, in a post titled “The Sad Losers of Politics,” has a good suggestion for the academics:

… they would have done better to compare elections with something people really care about, sports (and here). Sports and politics share the same irrational attachment to a team, the only difference being that the rivalries and hatreds of the former rarely lead to as much death and destruction as the latter

I also wonder whether there’s a difference between casual and intense followers of politics, or a difference between the young and the old. Does a loss hurt more when it’s the first time you’ve felt passionately about an election? Do you become desensitized to losses, or just more mature about them, the more campaigns you experience?

Second, Jonathan Bernstein defends America’s “kludgocracy,” or its habit of addressing problems through piecemeal add-ons to existing bureaucracy—which political scientist Steven M. Teles criticizes as “indirect and incoherent policy mechanisms” (see previous post). Bernstein argues that our fractured system, in which there is a bewildering number of ways for citizen to influence policy-making (not only through federal and local elections, but also joining lobbying groups or directly contacting government agencies), and that means “a far better chance of becoming a government ‘of ‘and ‘by’ the people than the alternative of a government of efficiently designed policy solutions.

While he admits that the ballot can be a “blunt instrument,” he concludes:

… kludgeocracy increases accountability—dramatically. Individual politicians have a real opportunity to make significant policy changes on many occasions. The very fact that there’s no one who is “in charge” is exactly what can make it hard for politicians to entirely duck a constituent’s demands. And we have plenty of evidence that politicians do respond to constitution demands, even if failure to do so probably wouldn’t show up as a significant electoral effect.

So, with a couple of caveats—don’t overreact if things don’t go your way, and don’t overestimate the changes that can happen if you’re on the winning team—have a happy and exciting Election Day.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.

Advertisement

The latest from america

 10.17.2018 Pope Francis greets Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago before a session of the Synod of Bishops on young people, the faith and vocational discernment at the Vatican Oct. 16. (CNS photo/Vatican Media)
“We take people where they are, walking with them, moving forward,” Cardinal Blase Cupich said.
Michael J. O’LoughlinOctober 20, 2018
Catherine Pakaluk, who currently teaches at the Catholic University of America and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, describes her tweet to Mr. Macron as “spirited” and “playful.”
Emma Winters October 19, 2018
A new proposal from the Department of Homeland Security could make it much more difficult for legal immigrants to get green cards in the United States. But even before its implementation, the proposal has led immigrants to avoid receiving public benefits.
J.D. Long-GarcíaOctober 19, 2018
 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, then nuncio to the United States, and then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, are seen in a combination photo during the beatification Mass of Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, N.J., Oct. 4, 2014. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)
In this third letter Archbishop Viganò no longer insists, as he did so forcefully in his first letter, that the restrictions that he claimed Benedict XVI had imposed on Archbishop McCarrick—one he alleges that Pope Francis later lifted—can be understood as “sanctions.”
Gerard O’ConnellOctober 19, 2018