Friday, July 27, 2007

Politicians and quantum "flip-flops"

One update (below)

As the campaign for the U.S. Presidential election gains momentum, we're once again subjected to the irritating spectacle of candidates responding to simple questions with paragraphs of vacuous waffle, and mouthing totally contradictory opinions to different groups. It's tempting, and maybe partially correct, to suspect they're all just slippery and mealy-mouthed weasels. But here's another idea: maybe the way they act has its origins in a deeper problem inherent in the mathematics of democracy and public opinion. There's good reason to believe that a candidate can appeal to more people by holding several contradictory views all at once.

The French philosopher, the Marquis de Condorcet, once proved a truly surprising theorem about public opinion. As individuals, people tend to be logically consistent in their opinions or preferences. If I prefer Obama over Clinton, and Clinton over Romney, then I'll also prefer Obama over Romney. If A outranks B, and B outranks C, then A should outrank C. Most of our thinking conforms to this basic rule of logic, at least most of the time.

But just because individual preferences follow such logic, this doesn't imply that groups do as well. Within a population of people, Condorcet proved, it is entirely possible for a majority to prefer A over B, a majority to prefer B over C, and a majority also to prefer C over A - making a cycle of collective preference, so that's its impossible to say which of A, B or C the people really prefer. (For example, take three voters who, respectively, rank three policy alternatives in the following orders: A > B > C, C > A > B, and B > C > A. It is easy to see that two out of three will prefer A over B, B over C, and yet also C over A.)

Nearly a decade ago, physicist David Meyer of the University of California at San Diego, and political scientist Thad Brown of the University of Missouri, suggested that this peculiar logic of popular opinion might well have something to do with the slippery views of politicians. Think of a candidate who just tries to mouth opinions that match up as closely as possible with the majority view. Quite possibly those opinions will necessarily involve some contradictions and apparently irrational cycles of preference. If so, then candidates and their advisors face a real choice between a strategy that respects ordinary logic, with the candidate promoting the kinds of consistent preferences than an individual might hold, and another in which the candidate abandons the need for consistency and uses more flexible and slippery tactics to appeal to as many voters as possible.

I'm guessing that almost all candidates follow the latter strategy, and those who don't tend to fall out of the polls very quickly. I recall being excited some years ago at the early Presidential candidacy of Governor of Arizona Bruce Babbit, who seemed to speak entirely sensibly about the importance of things like education, public health, investment in the nation's infrastructure, etc. He was so sensible and intelligent that his polling number quickly fell into the single digits and he dropped out of the race in about three weeks.

I suspect that experienced politicians may get drawn into adopting strategic contradictions more or less unconsciously, as they study polls and the results of focus groups and try to say things that put them in touch with the voters. "This," as Meyer and Brown put it, "is why it’s so hard for us as voters to discern exactly for what they stand."

The naive view of political strategy might hold that if most peoples' views fall into three sets, A, B, and C, which you might visualize in some "policy space," then the politician does best by "triangulating" -- setting out a position that falls at the center of those views. This way he or she appeals at least a little to everyone. But if cycles exist among the voting public, then a better bet may be to occupy not one point in policy space, but to spread out over a region and, roughly speaking, be as inconsistent as the voters.

Maybe there's a kind of perverse quantum logic to flip-flopping: just as quantum particles don't exist at any one point, but act as quantum waves and spread out through space, politicians defy the logic of individual thinking, and benefit by having fuzzy and ill-defined views.

Update

Just after I posted this, I remembered another interesting point relevant to this problem of Condorcet cycles in public opinion. The importance of the matter depends, of course, on the actual likelihood that public opinion really does show such cycles. Condorcet proved that it can. But in reality, does this happen very often?

Some physicists, Matteo Marsili and Giacomo Rafaelli, looked into this a few years ago. Their idea was to assume that individuals in a big population rank a series of alternatives, A, B, C, ... and so on in a random order. Each person has his or her own ranking, determined at random. Then they asked -- what is the chance, mathematically, that you'll find cycles in the group preferences when these people vote on the various alternatives in pairs? They vote on A versus B, A versus C, B versus C and so on. How likely is it that their voting shows a cycle? Their results showed that as the number of alternatives gets reasonable large, the chance of not having cycles dwindles rapidly to zero.

So if peoples' preferences were random, cycles are almost a guarantee. Of course, preferences aren't random, but treating them as such is at least crude approximation. And it suggests that the trouble presented by cycles, and the waffling strategies they make effective, may indeed be real.

On caveat, however -- Marsili and Rafaelli also showed that the tendency of people to conform with the views of others may play a powerful role in preventing Condorcet cycles and making the public's collective views more "rational" than they would otherwise be.

11 comments:

Len said...

As interesting and provocative as these findings are, I still prefer to think of all politicians as being weasels. It helps me get through the day.

kimy said...

you state: "Governor of Arizona Bruce Babbit, who seemed to speak entirely sensibly about the importance of things like education, public health, investment in the nation's infrastructure, etc. He was so sensible and intelligent" (I agree completely with your assessment) unfortunately, from my observations, these are precisely the qualities that appear to doom american politicians when they seek the presidency ... if an individual with these qualities actually does make it yikes! e.g., jimmy carter and look what happened to him during his presidency! and, we could add that technically al gore made it (I feel al shares bruce's sensibility on important social issues and has a keen intelligence) and look what happened to him in 2000- I could go off on what happened w/ gore but I don't want to come across as a (complete) conspiracy nut!

coincidentally, I just got home from the library where I picked up two books of yours which I had on hold - 'ubiquity' and 'the social atom' - as I was scanning the books to decide which to read first I came across the quote by jkg which is quite fitting given the topic at hand:
'politics in not the art of the possible. it consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.'

thanks for always providing much food for thought.

Kate said...

These studies also assume that 1) voters are rational and actively seeking information on which to make their decisions and 2) able to find the information they need to make their well-informed choices.

But since neither is true, politicians have a second incentive to tell different audiences what they want to hear. The media will not fact check, and no one outside the group will be the wiser.

My own heuristic is non-rational. A quick sort based on past performance, an assessment of mental ability and values, and a final choice based primarily on whether or not my skin crawls when this candidate speaks.

Who am I? said...

True, all. We voters aren't rational and most politicians are weasels. This peculiar mathematics illustrates what we'd be up against even if the above were not true...or perhaps it suggests that strong collective forces may give politicians additional incentives to act as weasels.

Anonymous said...

Good day !.
might , perhaps curious to know how one can manage to receive high yields .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may commense earning with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.

AimTrust is what you haven`t ever dreamt of such a chance to become rich
The firm incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.

It is based in Panama with affiliates around the world.
Do you want to become really rich in short time?
That`s your choice That`s what you wish in the long run!

I feel good, I started to get income with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to choose a correct partner who uses your money in a right way - that`s the AimTrust!.
I earn US$2,000 per day, and my first investment was 500 dollars only!
It`s easy to start , just click this link http://obakepew.freewaywebhost.com/jycaqy.html
and lucky you`re! Let`s take this option together to become rich

Anonymous said...

Good day !.
might , probably very interested to know how one can manage to receive high yields .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may commense to receive yields with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.

AimTrust is what you haven`t ever dreamt of such a chance to become rich
The firm incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.

Its head office is in Panama with structures around the world.
Do you want to become really rich in short time?
That`s your choice That`s what you really need!

I feel good, I started to get income with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. If it gets down to select a proper partner utilizes your money in a right way - that`s it!.
I earn US$2,000 per day, and what I started with was a funny sum of 500 bucks!
It`s easy to get involved , just click this link http://kyhyxata.freecities.com/colaci.html
and lucky you`re! Let`s take this option together to feel the smell of real money

Anonymous said...

Hello everyone!
I would like to burn a theme at this forum. There is such a thing, called HYIP, or High Yield Investment Program. It reminds of financial piramyde, but in rare cases one may happen to meet a company that really pays up to 2% daily not on invested money, but from real profits.

For several years , I make money with the help of these programs.
I'm with no money problems now, but there are heights that must be conquered . I make 2G daily, and I started with funny 500 bucks.
Right now, I managed to catch a guaranteed variant to make a sharp rise . Visit my blog to get additional info.

http://theblogmoney.com

Anonymous said...

Good day, sun shines!
There have were times of hardship when I felt unhappy missing knowledge about opportunities of getting high yields on investments. I was a dump and downright stupid person.
I have never imagined that there weren't any need in big starting capital.
Nowadays, I'm happy and lucky , I begin take up real money.
It's all about how to choose a correct companion who utilizes your funds in a right way - that is incorporate it in real business, parts and divides the income with me.

You can get interested, if there are such firms? I have to answer the truth, YES, there are. Please be informed of one of them:
http://theblogmoney.com

Anonymous said...

Hi!
You may probably be very interested to know how one can make real money on investments.
There is no initial capital needed.
You may commense to get income with a money that usually is spent
for daily food, that's 20-100 dollars.
I have been participating in one project for several years,
and I'll be glad to share my secrets at my blog.

Please visit my pages and send me private message to get the info.

P.S. I earn 1000-2000 per day now.

http://theinvestblog.com [url=http://theinvestblog.com]Online Investment Blog[/url]

Anonymous said...

Hello everyone!
I would like to burn a theme at here. There is such a nicey, called HYIP, or High Yield Investment Program. It reminds of ponzy-like structure, but in rare cases one may happen to meet a company that really pays up to 2% daily not on invested money, but from real profits.

For quite a long time, I earn money with the help of these programs.
I don't have problems with money now, but there are heights that must be conquered . I get now up to 2G a day , and I started with funny 500 bucks.
Right now, I'm very close at catching at last a guaranteed variant to make a sharp rise . Visit my web site to get additional info.

http://theinvestblog.com [url=http://theinvestblog.com]Online Investment Blog[/url]

Anonymous said...

Glad to greet you, ladies and gentlemen!

Let me introduce myself,
friends call me Peter.
Generally I’m a venturesome gambler. for a long time I’m keen on online-casino and poker.
Not long time ago I started my own blog, where I describe my virtual adventures.
Probably, it will be interesting for you to read my travel notes and reports about winnings and losses on this way.
Please visit my blog. http://allbestcasino.com I’ll be glad would you find time to leave your opinion.