The logos for Independent Alliance and Students for Change.
This week, you were undoubtedly hounded by Queens College students, most of whom you have never seen on campus before. It is elections week, and the two parties, SFC and IA, were battling it out to get your vote. I was disheartened to see so many students blindly cast their ballot, not knowing what their John Hancock was agreeing to. Yay democracy! Interestingly, from an economic perspective, we can better understand the nature of elections and even predict who will win.
“The government always has our best interests at heart” said no one ever.
Each party attempts to convince you that their party is the best. Each has your best interests at heart and will make Queens College a better, more enjoyable place. Both sides overuse this claim to the point where it is now banal and viewed as insincere.
I feel reassured when a Best Buy employee comes over to me carrying an i-Pad. He is obviously coming to assist me! When people in Queens College came over to me, they wanted one thing from me: a vote.
Just like in business, there is a tremendous amount of information asymmetry- where one side knows much more than the other- in the election process. At Queens College, most students know little to nothing about each party’s respective platform. Those walking around with ipads and laptops exploit this apathetic naivete.
The onus is on voters to minimize information asymmetry. They should take the time to read the palm cards that are handed out. They should question current policies as well as the proposed platforms. The result would be an informed student who is skeptical of the truth behind the mudslinging and will not vote for the first person who approaches them.
My favorite scene from Miss Congeniality 2.
They would also come to realize that many of ideas proposed by both parties are eerily similar. Perhaps I take elections too seriously (as evidenced by the fact that I am writing a blog about it!), but I sat down and compared both party’s platforms, side by side. I found striking similarities between what each party promised to do if elected. Many were for things that are popular with everyone. The only proposal conspicuously absent was “Achieve World Peace”- perhaps intentionally excluded, given the especially contentious nature of elections this year.
One of the major qualms students had against SFC was that it spent too much on frivolous activities. And yet, SFC was also criticized for not having hosted fallfest. One of the main reasons I abhor politics is because it is difficult to keep track of all the hypocrisies.
The basis for most of the platforms is how the budget will be spent. This money, which originates from our student fees, is finite and therefore, economically, a scarce resource. The student body party chooses how to allocate it as they deem most efficiently. The goal is to maximize our utility-the economic term for happiness. SFC’s president elect told me that his party hopes to increase student welfare, as they have attempted to do in past semesters by hosting a variety of events. I reached out to IA’s president elect, but as of this piece’s publication, I have yet to receive a response.
So who do you vote for? Some mistake elections for being a popularity contest, and vote for their friends. Others literally vote for the party whose representative approaches them first. Then there are the rare few who ponder both parties’ platforms and then vote.
In order to win, candidates vie for the loyalty of The elusive Median Voter. It is sad to think that choosing a winner is not based on important traits like credentials.
In economics, the Median Voter Theorem shows that, when two parties are on a continuum and everyone votes, the winner will be the most moderate. Graphically, voters are depicted on a bell curve, which is normally distributed. The most voters lie in the middle, where the curve is the highest. Holding all other variables constant, one can win simply by espousing ideas that are in the middle of the two extremes. Intuitively, this makes sense: we know that radical groups never garner enough votes to win a majority; they tend to only attract fringe groups that are small. The obvious long term problem with this approach, of course, is that the winner does not hold a firm stance on any issues. This is a major probable for a leader.
In our election, a microcosm for American elections, SFC and IA would not have been able to effectively implement this strategy. Mainly, their stances were too similar to be on opposite sides of a spectrum. Neither espoused radical ideas, such as getting rid of wi-fi on campus. Moreover, since not every student voted, this theorem, in our case, is invalid. There are too many students who refuse to vote, either on principle or because they rush home immediately after classes and escape the political parties’ pestering.
I consider myself to be an informed voter, but who is not too picky. Case in point: as long as this photo becomes a reality, I will be perfectly content.
That there is a relationship between economics and how the election was run is not surprising. Government and economics are frequently intertwined, especially when it comes to implementing policies and regulations. Then there is the issue of trying to make sure as many people as possible benefit from the new rules. At Queens College, elections week evokes rivalries between different religions, ethnicities, and student groups. This is extremely disappointing for a school that is situated in the most richly diverse area in America and prides itself on its diversity.
From a utilitarian point of view, the ends ultimately justify the means. All tactics may be implemented, so long as they result in the best possible outcome. Though this may be ethically questionable to say, may the best man win! (Sorry Hilary.)
