Over the years, the political landscape has transformed from aristocracy towards democracy. The trend is due to the acknowledgment that in dictatorial governance those in power are the only benefactors as they make decisions based on their utility maximization at the expense of others in the society. Democracy, on the other hand, enables the people to vote for leaders who would put their grievances as their priority to ensure they share the national cake. The notion that democracy is the best mode of governance was supported and seen as the best mode of governance, but the public choice theory founded by Buchanan and Tullock tends to differ with that general assumption by most people. Buchanan termed public choice as “politics without romance” (Shughart II, 2008), in his bid to demonstrate that economic benefits are the reasons behind any voting preference.
The theory explains the different factors affecting elections need to vote and the final results based on economic principles. According to microeconomics, an individual consumer will only purchase a good or service based on maximizing their satisfaction. Businesses primary objective is to maximize profits whereas politicians just as people and companies will also act similar manner to maximize election votes. Democracy promotes voting that enables the wishes of the majority are fulfilled, but it fails to consider that not all policies can benefit everyone. During manifestos, politicians tend to sell their preferences and capture the voters just as businesses try to advertise their products in any given market to gain competitive advantage (Tucker, 2008). For instance, in an election involving two parties, A and B, various manifestos will help each party win more votes than the other. If both sides have six policies in their manifestos, the public will vote for the party whose manifesto will benefit them more. For example, if party A’s declaration is determined to reduce taxation for small enterprises, the entrepreneurs will vote for A as the lower taxes will increase the money they retain as profit. The notion will be different to agriculture laborers as the policy does not benefit them. Party B’s plan may include reduction of taxes for agricultural labor workers thus leading to who benefit directly to vote for B.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The cost-benefit evaluation on the willingness to vote is based on the advantages of voting part A over B. If the costs are higher for the individual not to vote and party B wins, then the person is more willing to participate in the election (Shughart II, 2008). In democratic and most other elections, an individual vote is less significant if the majority prefer one candidate over the other unless there are many candidates and the probability of any candidate to win is high, or there is a tie that needs to be broken, then the importance of individual vote increases. Due to the insignificance of a single value unless in the latter situation, a person who is unsatisfied by the manifestos of either party cannot affect their need for change and thus, he/she may choose not to vote or seek like-minded people to form a group (Shughart II, 2008).
The group will threaten to withhold their votes if sure the candidate does not support and help enhance their wishes. These situations lead to lobbying where the politician is willing to sacrifice some of the policies to the group’s point of view and in return gain their votes and win elections. The politician’s aim is to win election thus his/her support of the groups is equivalent to the consumer groups which use their purchasing power to pressure suppliers to ensure the vendors are willing to either improve quality or reduce prices. The relationship leads to both parties benefiting (Tucker, 2008). The decision to support for the sake of winning elections leads to the candidate to support policies that will not benefit the entire community or country as the economic benefits are enjoyed by the lobbying groups or a few people.
Lastly, funding of political campaigns has enabled big corporations to finance campaigns of candidates who will support their economic interests. For instance, the motor vehicle companies supported politicians to ensure that they would form regulations that inhibited importation of vehicles. The move is known as rent-seeking as the firms would gain competitive advantage whereas the public would not benefit from the cheaper cars or choices of vehicles to purchase (Mariotti, 2016). Lastly, the issues of inadequate information within the political playfield lead to the failure of elections to demonstrate the needs of the people. The different preferences of a candidate over another in such an inadequate information system result in voters voting based on trivial issues like candidate’s appearances (Tucker, 2008). In conclusion, it is evident that politics, as explained in the public choice theory, employs the Game Theory of economics where the Nash equilibrium determines the ability to be reelected.
References
Mariotti, S. (2016, September 29). What Every Voter Should Know About Public Choice Theory. HuffPost . Retrieved June 28, 2017, from, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-mariotti/what-every-voter-should-k_b_8217650.html
Shughart II, W. (2008). Public Choice: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty. Library Economics Liberty . Retrieved June 28, 2017, from, http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html
Tucker, I. B. (2008). Survey of economics . Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
