Second Reply to Caplan: The Power and the Glory of the Median Voter
IT IS ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO HAVE THE LAST WORD. I WILL NOT make a point-by-point counter-argument to Brian Caplanâ€™s Rejoinder (2005b) because doing so would exhaust my patience, as well as the readersâ€™ (but probably not Caplanâ€™s). Instead, I will present some general arguments that can be employed in answering a variety of questions. In my response I will: explain why there is a demand for democratic failure theories; predict which voters will appear to act irrationally; explain why evidence of voter irrationality does not imply that government policy is irrational; show why Caplanâ€™s argument that voters are rationally irrational when they vote does not conform with the facts; and suggest empirical tests that might be employed to gain greater insight into voter behavior.
Volume (Year): 2 (2005)
Issue (Month): 2 (August)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Enterprise Hall, Room 354, 4400 University Drive, 3G4 Fairfax, VA 22030|
Phone: (703) 993-1151
Web page: https://econjwatch.org/
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ejw:journl:v:2:y:2005:i:2:p:186-195. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jason Briggeman)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.