I don't think you should focus so much on the median voter theorem. The logic of median voter theorems is that politicians offer policies that closely resemble the median voter's desires. This assumes that politicians have direct influence over the policy in question.
My impression is that this is not the case with adoption law. Take for example the de-facto ban on trans-racial adoption. From all accounts, this is a norm enforced within the community of adoption case workers. The average politician probably doen't have the time or effort to regulate such issues. The resources spent combating this norm will probably not be justified in terms of votes. A more probably chain of causation is: adoption workers get legislation passed giving them jurisdiction over adoptions (called "usurptation" in some academic circles), then set up self-perpetuating mechanisms that enforce unpopular policies. Since little is to be gained from combatting these policies, few people bother to fight it. Fabio > Two weeks ago there was a John Stossel special on adoption. Does the > median voter really want the system we have, where basketcase biological > parents can take their crying offspring away from impeccable adoptive > parents? How about the de facto efforts to avoid trans-racial > adoption? Etc.? I rarely expect the median voter to agree with me, but > this seems like a case where a comfortable majority of normal Americans > dislike the existing rules. > > You might say that people are a lot more worried about losing their own > biological kids than they are about other people's adoptive kids being > taken away. But I doubt that explanation is right. > -- > Prof. Bryan Caplan
