Voters are idiots, apparently

While many of us in America take our duties as voters and citizens very seriously (or at least think we do),  educating ourselves on the issues of the day and then trying our best to make the right decisions, many more of us... don't (emphasis mine).

Recent research has revealed that voter irrationality may be more arbitrary than we think. And in a razor-thin election just enough irrationality can make all the difference. Just how irrational are voters? It is statistically possible that the outcome of a handful of college football games in the right battleground states could determine the race for the White House. 

Economists Andrew Healy, Neil Malhotra, and Cecilia Mo make this argument in a fascinating article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. They examined whether the outcomes of college football games on the eve of elections for presidents, senators, and governors affected the choices voters made. They found that a win by the local team, in the week before an election, raises the vote going to the incumbent by around 1.5 percentage points. When it comes to the 20 highest attendance teams—big athletic programs like the University of Michigan, Oklahoma, and Southern Cal—a victory on the eve of an election pushes the vote for the incumbent up by 3 percentage points. That’s a lot of votes, certainly more than the margin of victory in a tight race. And these results aren’t based on just a handful of games or political seasons; the data were taken from 62 big-time college teams from 1964 to 2008. 

The good news, we suppose, is that sports really can cheer us up and make the world seem like a brighter place. The sports fan is left happier and more satisfied all around, not just on the gridiron. When you are feeling upbeat and happy, you feel more satisfied with the status quo in general. And feeling satisfied with the status quo makes you more likely to vote for the incumbent politician, even if that’s totally irrational. 

The study’s authors control for economic, demographic, and political factors, so the results are much more sophisticated than just a raw correlation. They also did a deeper analysis that took into account people’s expectations. It turns out that surprise wins are especially potent, raising local support for incumbent politicians by around 2.5 percentage points.

Oh, boy... taking a look at the schedule (and the electoral map), that means we should probably be keeping an eye on Missouri-Florida, UVA-NC State, Virginia Tech-Miami (not sure what to make of that one), and perhaps most importantly Ohio State-Illinois.

I've covered voter irrationality—and self-deception—before (here and here, mostly), but this takes that to a whole new level. It's one thing to vote based on contradictory principles or on platforms and ideologies that don't make a whole lot of sense. It's another thing entirely to walk into a voting booth and vote for the incumbent just because you're happy that day. But hey... that's democracy, right?

Now, for today's final word on voter idiocy, we'll turn to our friends at Freakonomics, who shared a fantastic letter that was sent to economist Bryan Caplan by a former (and, for our purposes, anonymous) Virginia state senator. I think it sums things up pretty nicely.

"I do want to thank you for confirming by your research that my ideas about the stupidity of voters is a valid thought." Pretty sure that's not exactly the sentiment we hope to hear from our elected officials. But given our level of competence with respect to investments, it's hardly surprising.  

[Slate]
[Freakonomics]

Quote of the Week

So, this week's Quote of the Week is really just going to be part of a broader post about Ohio State and Jim Tressel, which will also include a bit of a mea culpa referring back to a post of mine from five months ago. To refresh your memory,

On Monday I was highly critical of the NCAA and its response to the tattoo scandal at Ohio State. To the institution's credit, Ohio State stepped up and did what the NCAA was apparently unwilling to do, forcing its players to take responsibility for their actions.

Ohio State players facing five-game suspensions next season would not have traveled with the team to the Allstate Sugar Bowl if they had not pledged to return in 2011, coach Jim Tressel said on Thursday.

The five players, including quarterback Terrelle Pryor, have been punished by the NCAA for selling championship rings and memorabilia and taking discounts from a tattoo parlor.

Tressel said he wanted to make sure that the players wouldn't "skirt the consequences" by playing in the Sugar Bowl, then declaring for the NFL draft and avoiding any punishment...

Obviously I've got complex feelings about the NCAA and its policies. I don't think that they should punish players for selling jerseys (or other paraphernalia) while allowing the universities and corporate sponsors to profit from doing the same. So, in isolation, I think that any punishment of the Ohio State players for these violations is unjust. However, I am all for consistency, and the treatment of the Ohio State players in comparison to A.J. Green smacks of favoritism by the NCAA and cowering to corporate interests (despite their denials, which rely on such badly flawed logic that they're not even worth dignifying with a response here).

Luckily, Ohio State has stepped up and ensured that their players do face some punishment (as I wrote earlier this week, the NCAA's "punishment" left open the possibility that the players could escape repercussions entirely by declaring for the NFL Draft). Will Ohio State benefit from having those players around for the second half of next season, instead of not at all? Sure. But I'm not quite cynical enough to think that's the real (or at least, the only) reason they took this course of action. I think they did the right thing here, and made a statement in favor of equal punishment for equal crimes. Good for them.

Yeah... I'm gonna have to go ahead and take that back now. Over the past several months, there has been a series of revelations of exactly what Ohio State and Coach Tressel knew, when they knew it, and what they did (and did not do) to alert the NCAA and the department's own compliance office. This whirlwind of events finally came to a head yesterday, with Coach Tressel's announcement of his resignation as head coach, effective immediately.

 

It turns out that Tressel wasn't nearly as innocent as he'd let on, and was in fact complicit in this wrongdoing from the very start. His duplicitous nature as these incidents were coming to light (including his actions in December, which now are revealed to have been a transparent attempt to shift all blame and responsibility from his shoulders onto his players' shoulders--some leadership, huh?) is nauseating in retrospect, and frankly I shouldn't be surprised. I've been on record before as being particularly hard on many college coaches (especially Nick Saban) who profit massively on the backs of free labor from their players while letting their own ethics slide--this incident officially represents a new low for that group.

 

Without further ado (or further ranting), here's a nice quote from Tressel's preachy 2008 book "The Winners Manual: For the Game of Life", which shockingly turns out to have been one of the most hypocritical books ever written.

 

This Week's QUOTE OF THE WEEK

 

"The reputation of a thousand years may be determined by the conduct of one hour."

                                             - Former Ohio State football coach Jim Tressel

 

You said it, Jim. For all the preaching about religion and faith and discipline and "doing things the right way", you failed miserably when the spotlight was brightest. And what's worse, you tried to let others take the fall for you as it was happening, staying hypocritical right up until the very end. Your moral corruption knows no bounds, and you deserve your fate. Let's just hope that Terrelle Pryor--whatever his shortcomings--doesn't suffer the same fate as the last Buckeye football player to challenge a broken system, Maurice Clarett.

 

Giving credit where it's due

On Monday I was highly critical of the NCAA and its response to the tattoo scandal at Ohio State. To the institution's credit, Ohio State stepped up and did what the NCAA was apparently unwilling to do, forcing its players to take responsibility for their actions.

Ohio State players facing five-game suspensions next season would not have traveled with the team to the Allstate Sugar Bowl if they had not pledged to return in 2011, coach Jim Tressel said on Thursday.

The five players, including quarterback Terrelle Pryor, have been punished by the NCAA for selling championship rings and memorabilia and taking discounts from a tattoo parlor.

Tressel said he wanted to make sure that the players wouldn't "skirt the consequences" by playing in the Sugar Bowl, then declaring for the NFL draft and avoiding any punishment.

"We told them they would have to make the decision on the NFL prior to leaving for the bowl game," Tressel said at his first Sugar Bowl news conference. "It wouldn't be fair to not face the consequences down the road."...

Four sold their 2008 Big Ten championship rings for $1,000 to $1,200 apiece; Herron sold his football jersey, pants and shoes for $1,000; and [defensive end] Solomon [Thomas] and Pryor each sold his "gold pants" trinket -- given to Buckeyes players if they beat Michigan -- for several hundred dollars. Pryor also sold a 2009 Fiesta Bowl sportsmanship award.

Tressel said he was disappointed not only because his players broke the rules, but also because they sold what he thought of as important keepsakes from their football careers.

Obviously I've got complex feelings about the NCAA and its policies. I don't think that they should punish players for selling jerseys (or other paraphernalia) while allowing the universities and corporate sponsors to profit from doing the same. So, in isolation, I think that any punishment of the Ohio State players for these violations is unjust. However, I am all for consistency, and the treatment of the Ohio State players in comparison to A.J. Green smacks of favoritism by the NCAA and cowering to corporate interests (despite their denials, which rely on such badly flawed logic that they're not even worth dignifying with a response here).

Luckily, Ohio State has stepped up and ensured that their players do face some punishment (as I wrote earlier this week, the NCAA's "punishment" left open the possibility that the players could escape repercussions entirely by declaring for the NFL Draft). Will Ohio State benefit from having those players around for the second half of next season, instead of not at all? Sure. But I'm not quite cynical enough to think that's the real (or at least, the only) reason they took this course of action. I think they did the right thing here, and made a statement in favor of equal punishment for equal crimes. Good for them.

[ESPN.com]

Another item I can't ignore

Given my history of criticizing the NCAA (and its corporate enablers), I have to at least mention my extreme displeasure with the organization's handling of the tattoo scandal at Ohio State University, even if it is a couple of days late (emphasis mine).

What started out as a trip to a Columbus tattoo parlor by a couple of football players has created all sorts of mayhem for star quarterback Terrelle Pryor and Ohio State.

Pryor and four teammates were suspended Thursday by the NCAA for the first five games of next season for selling championship rings, jerseys and awards. They also received improper benefits -- from up to two years ago -- from the tattoo parlor and its owner.

The NCAA said all can still play in the Sugar Bowl against Arkansas on Jan. 4 in New Orleans. Ohio State's first five games next season are against Akron, Toledo, Miami, Colorado and Michigan State. Ohio State plans to appeal, hoping the number of games might be reduced.

Conveniently, all five players in question are juniors, which means they are eligible to enter this spring's NFL Draft. So, if they choose to, each of these players can escape punishment altogether. So too can Ohio State--which won't face any repercussions in its bowl game--as well as the NCAA, ESPN, and all of the relevant corporate sponsors (most notably Allstate, who proved that they're in good hands with the NCAA). Pay no attention to the rumored "violations"--we can all continue to make money off of these athletes, as planned:

This punishment, like most recent NCAA punishments, is a non-punishment. Cam Newton was bizarrely declared ineligible and then immediately reinstated, and now Ohio State players are being suspended for games they may never play. The NCAA continues to show that when enough money is on the line, there is no violation too serious to be overlooked. Properly sanctioning Newton or the Ohio State players would have meant compromising two of their crown jewel BCS bowl games, which of course would have angered ESPN and other corporate sponsors alike. We can't have that.

If you read me often, you know that I tend to sympathize with the athlete in these types of situations. But in this case, everyone shares some of the blame. The Ohio State players broke the rules, whether the rules were just or not. And the NCAA decided that they didn't care, because the money at stake was too important. Multiple wrongs do not make a right--this system is broken.

Some of these players may indeed come back to play their senior years, but the point is that they don't have to serve any suspension if they don't want to. Suspending A.J. Green but not suspending Newton or Terrelle Pryor is just inconsistent--and that, ultimately, is what I take issue with. The NCAA has gone too far down the road of treating football like a business (rather than an interscholastic pursuit), and a correction is long overdue.

[ESPN.com]