fabio guillermo rojas wrote:
>
> > Any decent treatment of the MV states that it is the median *actual*
> > voter who matters, not the median *potential* voter. It's the Median
> > VOTER theorem, not the Median CITIZEN theorem, or the Median SENTIENT
> > BEING theorem.
>
> I still think this is true but still misleading. Consider how American
> politicians succeed - first, they must fund raise and win the favor
> of party big wigs; then they must must survive a round of primaries;
> then they must survive the general election. We have at least three
> successive rounds of MVT. This suggests that policies are probably
> tailored to one of these three audiences. Thus, I find that arguments
> of the form "survey X says people hate policy Y" really miss the point.
> For there to be a real puzzle, you have to show how policy Y is not
> preferred by party activists, primary voters and general voters.
> Ie, you have to understand how institutions partition voters
> into specific groups.
There are several levels of puzzlement.
Puzzle #1: The median voter disapproves of existing policy.
Puzzle #2: The median voter, primary voters, and party activists ALL
disapprove of existing policy.
I don't think there are many good examples of #1. There are even fewer
good examples of #2. Can you think of any?
So what are you getting at? Since there is a series of elections, each
with a different median voter, the MVT doesn't actually predict that the
median general voter gets his way? Or what?
--
Prof. Bryan Caplan
Department of Economics George Mason University
http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"He wrote a letter, but did not post it because he felt that no one
would have understood what he wanted to say, and besides it was not
necessary that anyone but himself should understand it."
Leo Tolstoy, *The Cossacks*
