> Elasticity and stickiness are different concepts. But in any case, > there is little evidence that policy preferences shift rapidly. When
Ok, how about the 94 congressional election? Seems that voter preferences shifted little or not at all, but a bunch of conservatives got voted into office. Of course, they moderated after they got in, so maybe knee jerk MVT wins again but only in the long run. > Sure, there is a little of this. But again, I doubt this matters much. > The Supreme Court held off New Deal legislation a little bit for a > couple of years, but after 4 years it caved in completely. Is that a good example? The nation was in a depression and the New Deal was urgent. But also consider this: if you had polled people in 1931, would they have demanded all the alphabet agencies? I doubt New Deal was a response to the median voter, other than a vague "do something!" > politician match the median preference." Also true. In other words, > you seem to be giving the MVT an extra line of defense. As this thread has evolved, I've come to realize that my beef is not with MVT, but with applications. > My point, again, is that there are few such discrepancies! It's NOT > easy to make a list of issues and find deviations. Ok - I'll take some guesses: Affirmative action Adoption policies (compliments of B.C.) Pre-1996 Welfare policy The Somalia intervention (did any voters want that one?) Any increase ever in personal income taxes In New Jersey: The long time prohibition on self-serve gas stations > Knee jerk use is appropriate in this case. The theoretical objections > are weak, and the empirical evidence in favor is strong. Well, I'm not going to say the gov't passes policies left and right without voter approval, but I'm not sure the "knee jerk" MVT allows for lags in policies, or the many idiosyncrasies we observe. Fabio
