Good Intentions—Bad Consequences: Voters’ Information Problems
by Phillip Nelson
PageTurner Press and Media


"Economists claim, with varying degrees of consensus, a whole range of unintended consequences of the naïve altruistic voting associated with liberals."

Economist Nelson explores voters' choices and consequences through a thought-provoking, libertarian approach. This keen-eyed, academic observation of human nature is supported by citations of like-minded authors' economic, philosophical, political science, and sociological studies. Readers may wish to explore the cited authors' publications in part or full to grasp the full thrust of Nelson's arguments.

Nelson maintains that even with unlimited information at voters' fingertips, voters tend to seek information that agrees with their confirmation bias. In other words, people live and think within comfortable echo chambers, a fact that many across the political spectrum can agree upon. The author posits that all voters are affected by confirmation bias yet articulates often that this attribute affects liberals more often than conservatives: "But conservatives are more focused on self-interest, and people have better information about what constitutes their own self-interest, and so are less subject to confirmation bias in their decisions." Nelson feels, "In consequence, policy would become less liberal with greater information." Nelson wants all academic policy discussions to include unintended consequences of voter decisions. However, his viewpoint links negative consequences primarily to liberal voters.

Another strongly affirmed point is that altruistic voting decisions spurring government spending for many social issues, including environmental problems, can be adequately handled through charity. Nelson also promotes other controversial economic points, such as "the redistribution that occurs in democracy is from rich to poor" and "aid to the poor can discourage education by increasing the income of the uneducated." In balance, very few opposing views are brought to the discussion except in negating these as "altruistic naivete," an argument that may convince voters in a robust conversation. Readers who enjoy books that approach political thinking from a perspective that may or not be their own might find this book to be just what they are looking for.

Return to USR Home