I am at an FTE seminar and as I was doing one of the readings I found something that I thought supported my argument that we should be return the way U.S. senators are elected to having the State Assemblies elect the state’s U.S. senators.
The book ‘The Economics of Public Policies’ says, ” many government policies are directed at dividing up the pie in new ways so that one group gets more resources at the expense of some other group. To do this successfully, politicians must be adept at concentrating benefits of policies among a few favored recipients while dispersing the costs of those policies across a large number of disfavored individuals.
The book goes on to say, “The concept of rational ignorance explains what is really going on. It is costly for individuals to keep track of exactly how the decisions of their elected representatives effect them. When the consequences of political decisions are large enough to outweigh the monitoring costs, voters swiftly and surely express their pleasure or displeasure, both in the voting booth and in their campaign contributions. But when the consequences to each of them individually are small relative to the monitoring cots, people quite sensibly don’t bother to keep track of them – they remain “rationally ignorant.”
I contend that this is exactly what goes on with voters nowadays. Our U.S. senators are creating policies to help special interests groups and in turn helps the senators with their reelection campaigns – at a small cost to individual voters so we are staying “rationally ignorant’. If we had US senators elected by state assemblies, there is a small enough group of state representatives to hold U.S. Senators accountable for their actions.
Someone told me that their was rampant back-door-deals before the election method was changed in 1913 – and I don’t know much about that so I am excited to hear about your ideas on reverting back to our original method of electing U.S. Senators or about the historical problems that the old system created.
Greg K.
Hi Greg and welcome to the site! While I haven’t researched the pros and cons of a return to assembly-elected senators, I definitely agree that most of us (in many instances myself included) maintain a stance of rational ignorance: “If it doesn’t concern me, why should I care? Why bother?”
The question for me becomes “How do you get people to care?” I can assign my government students any number of tasks–checking a senator’s voting records on any given issue is a perennial–but I don’t know how to encourage them to care, if they’re not so inclined anyway, unless I can help them see how it DOES affect their lives.
In my case, Will’s boxes provide a framework for helping others to see both the big picture and their little corner of it. The more I toss the model around in my mind the more clearly I see it, and the more readily I can pass it on. It is helping me to develop a vision beyond my own station in life.
It also helps to have traveled regularly since childhood: to see other places, meet other people, explore other ideas; unfortunately in a high-poverty rural area, most of my students have not had that opportunity. So all my travels become professional development–stuff to share with my kids! Montpelier will be a great segue into both government and history (including biography, culture, archaeology…), and a trip to the beach becomes a science lesson (wetlands ecology).
Will all this cure rational ignorance? No, but awareness is a step in the right direction: if we KNOW we’re ignorant, maybe we’ll get curious.
Interesting piece about rational ignorance as it applies to direct election of senators. Federalism, popular sovereignty, elite theory, mixture in government, stability, and corruption are other ways this issue can be approached. I don’t feel strongly one way or another about direct election of senators, to be honest. I am weak on the history of this issue. Perhaps someone else can sum up the argument for and against.
There’s a decent history of this question provided on the Senate’s website.
Sometimes a proposed solution really is too simple. File this in the category of the pendulum swinging to and fro or in the “been there, done that” file.
The history of electing Senators by state legislatures is one of deadlock with seats remaining empty for long periods, bribery to buy the seats, and intimidation to get someone to drop the fight. No doubt, some periods of our history are marked by more closed door dealings than others but I can’t imagine this system faring any better today. We really haven’t come as far as we think we have.
I’ve worked within one of the parties enough to know everyone who thinks they’re “in the know” demonstrates what they know by making grand statements about candidates who have paid their dues–measured in contributions to local, state, and national party organizations as well as to favored party candidates. Grand statements are made about voting records and little escapes without being trivialized. There is no way I believe my state legislature would wade through all of that and arrive at a better decision than I would. I can even name a couple dozen other people I’d trust more. I can imagine comparing the state legislature’s outcome to my sister’s vote and still liking her choice better. She’ll probably vote for whomever looks the best…if I can convince her to vote. She still has a 50/50 shot at it.
So, let me play the populist here. It’s fairly easy since I really am puzzled at how easy some of us would let election by popular vote go. I trust the people and their result however they come to their conclusion more than I trust previously elected officials jockeying for position within the party or for the next office they’ll seek.
While I’d like there to be widespread participation in elections, I think it’s perfectly rational to choose to not participate. If that leaves the ultimate outcome to a few quasi-rational people, that’s a system that works well enough for me.
What a wonderful point. Nobody has made me see it from that angle. If we are to return to assembly elected Senators, then in the same instance of legislation we must do away with the electoral college!
Actually, John, I think those ideas are pointed in different directions. Removing the electoral college would be an effort to make the process more democratic by relying only on the popular vote. We’d be doing exactly the opposite thing if we removed the election of Senators by popular vote and put it in the hands of the state legislatures.
The electoral college elects the President who has a different role and set of responsibilities than our Senators elected by each state. There might be an answer there as to how we could find good reason to lobby in both directions.
Since I would defend the electoral college and fight against electing Senators by state legislatures, my arguments in each instance might be opposed to one another too!
Hmmmm…
While certainly not everyone does, I’m blessed with relatively easy access to my Senators, and we the people of Alabama are not likely to give that up without a fight.
As to the electoral college, for the sake of the less populated states, I think we have to keep it. I have an extended post on my blog, written last summer, if you want to read it.
LP
And when you’re through, check out the light-hearted fare of hobbes21′s PROVERBS FOR THE 21st C.
Say CHEESE!