What do you think?
Rate this book
Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government Is Smarter
One of the biggest problems with modern democracy is that most of the public is usually ignorant of politics and government. Often, many people understand that their votes are unlikely to change the outcome of an election and don't see the point in learning much about politics. This may be rational, but it creates a nation of people with little political knowledge and little ability to objectively evaluate what they do know.
In Democracy and Political Ignorance , Ilya Somin mines the depths of ignorance in America and reveals the extent to which it is a major problem for democracy. Somin weighs various options for solving this problem, arguing that political ignorance is best mitigated and its effects lessened by decentralizing and limiting government. Somin provocatively argues that people make better decisions when they choose what to purchase in the market or which state or local government to live under, than when they vote at the ballot box, because they have stronger incentives to acquire relevant information and to use it wisely.
In Democracy and Political Ignorance , Ilya Somin mines the depths of ignorance in America and reveals the extent to which it is a major problem for democracy. Somin weighs various options for solving this problem, arguing that political ignorance is best mitigated and its effects lessened by decentralizing and limiting government. Somin provocatively argues that people make better decisions when they choose what to purchase in the market or which state or local government to live under, than when they vote at the ballot box, because they have stronger incentives to acquire relevant information and to use it wisely.
276 pages, Paperback
First published September 18, 2013
22 people are currently reading
417 people want to read
About the author
Ilya Somin
21 books21 followersProfessor at the George Mason University School of Law, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, a blogger for Volokh Conspiracy, and a former co-editor of the Supreme Court Economic Review (2006 to mid-2013).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
November 2, 2017
In many ways, this is a frightening book. Somin goes into careful detail on the arguments and evidence for widespread and persistent political ignorance. Then he discusses the harm such ignorance has on policy and good governance. And then he shows that most solutions are likely to fail to significantly reduce the problem. Some of the solutions discussed wouldn’t likely work even if they were feasible or likely to be implemented. Many of the other solutions—including Somin’s own suggestion: limiting the scope and power of government—suffer from the paradox that to implement them means first overcoming the problem of political ignorance.
Thought there is some technical detail; Somin has an exceptionally clear style. He’s careful and thorough in his research, and makes great effort to be balanced and intellectually honest.
The case Somin makes for limiting the scope (what government can do) and power (decentralizing power) of government is persuasive – though I am predisposed towards his conclusions to start with. Nevertheless, Somin’s discussion of the contrasting efficacy between ballot voting and voting with one’s feet does a lot to make a relatively ideologically neutral argument for limiting the power and scope of government.
There is one persistent sticking point for me. So the long-standing evidence shows that most voters lack political knowledge. This is explained by the theory of rational ignorance: where since (1) gaining more political knowledge takes resources (time, effort) and (2) any individual vote has almost no chance of having an impact (no payoff), it is rational to remain ignorant: there is no payoff for the resources invested. A potential problem here is that one thing that voters are ignorant of is (2). Most voters think their vote matters and has an important impact (and this why they vote). So it seems that by their own standards, they should be investing the resources to gain more political knowledge. But they don’t. This makes it seem that their ignorance is not, by their own lights, rational. Maybe the literature on rational ignorance has an answer to this, but the ones I’ve come across don’t seem to explain it to my satisfaction. Somin’s response seems to be that this falls into a sort of sweet spot: voters overestimate their impact (so they go to vote) but not enough to give them an incentive to get more political knowledge. This may be the case, but I still don’t find it satisfying. It might explain the paradox of voting, but I’m not sure it explains the apparent irrationality of thinking your vote has an impact while remaining ignorant.
This is an important book that any one interested in social knowledge, political philosophy, or political science ought to read.
Thought there is some technical detail; Somin has an exceptionally clear style. He’s careful and thorough in his research, and makes great effort to be balanced and intellectually honest.
The case Somin makes for limiting the scope (what government can do) and power (decentralizing power) of government is persuasive – though I am predisposed towards his conclusions to start with. Nevertheless, Somin’s discussion of the contrasting efficacy between ballot voting and voting with one’s feet does a lot to make a relatively ideologically neutral argument for limiting the power and scope of government.
There is one persistent sticking point for me. So the long-standing evidence shows that most voters lack political knowledge. This is explained by the theory of rational ignorance: where since (1) gaining more political knowledge takes resources (time, effort) and (2) any individual vote has almost no chance of having an impact (no payoff), it is rational to remain ignorant: there is no payoff for the resources invested. A potential problem here is that one thing that voters are ignorant of is (2). Most voters think their vote matters and has an important impact (and this why they vote). So it seems that by their own standards, they should be investing the resources to gain more political knowledge. But they don’t. This makes it seem that their ignorance is not, by their own lights, rational. Maybe the literature on rational ignorance has an answer to this, but the ones I’ve come across don’t seem to explain it to my satisfaction. Somin’s response seems to be that this falls into a sort of sweet spot: voters overestimate their impact (so they go to vote) but not enough to give them an incentive to get more political knowledge. This may be the case, but I still don’t find it satisfying. It might explain the paradox of voting, but I’m not sure it explains the apparent irrationality of thinking your vote has an impact while remaining ignorant.
This is an important book that any one interested in social knowledge, political philosophy, or political science ought to read.
August 12, 2016
The main theme of the book is that it is rational to be politically ignorant because of essentially a third-party system whereby representatives deciding laws and courts determining whether those laws are constitutional, leading to Somin's conclusion that smaller government is smarter and more efficient.
Limited government contributes to less political ignorance and more ability by citizens to influence laws.
It is a well-written book and I found the explanation of the countermajoritarian difficulty to be of interest. Foot voting is powerful to express one's discontent over ballot box voting and helps to reduce political ignorance because it's in someone's best interest to learn more and leave if so desired.
A republic may not be the optimal form of government, but which system is better? I don't think that there is one, so we must accept that it is not perfect and allow people to act rationally to determine what best satisfies their desires when determining whether to educate themselves on political matters and vote or not. For me, I choose to educate myself on these issues and vote.
I enjoyed this book and appreciate an alternative view to economic arguments that supports limited government, and classical liberalism that I find most appealing. Check it out and determine for yourself.
Limited government contributes to less political ignorance and more ability by citizens to influence laws.
It is a well-written book and I found the explanation of the countermajoritarian difficulty to be of interest. Foot voting is powerful to express one's discontent over ballot box voting and helps to reduce political ignorance because it's in someone's best interest to learn more and leave if so desired.
A republic may not be the optimal form of government, but which system is better? I don't think that there is one, so we must accept that it is not perfect and allow people to act rationally to determine what best satisfies their desires when determining whether to educate themselves on political matters and vote or not. For me, I choose to educate myself on these issues and vote.
I enjoyed this book and appreciate an alternative view to economic arguments that supports limited government, and classical liberalism that I find most appealing. Check it out and determine for yourself.
July 31, 2023
3.5 stars. I am a sucker for books from political science, anthropology, and any social sciences literature from academics. Terrific first part kept me super engaged:
-The concept of rational irrationality, wherein the net benefit of acquiring knowledge about something is so small that you’d rather not acquire at all. It affects many human experience like following your favourite sports teams to being a swifty. Politics is no different. Perfectly intelligent people with access to vast amounts of information will choose to ignore and vote whomever is perceived to align with their interests.
- The expected utility function math was engrossing( if nothing read it)
- The odds of one vote making a difference is so infinitesimally small that it reinforces the above point
- partisan dogmas reinforce point 1 further
Second part is where I was hoping the author would give more practical path forward. Was a bit frustrating that he doesn’t. Still a good read. Could’ve been great, the material was right there!
-The concept of rational irrationality, wherein the net benefit of acquiring knowledge about something is so small that you’d rather not acquire at all. It affects many human experience like following your favourite sports teams to being a swifty. Politics is no different. Perfectly intelligent people with access to vast amounts of information will choose to ignore and vote whomever is perceived to align with their interests.
- The expected utility function math was engrossing( if nothing read it)
- The odds of one vote making a difference is so infinitesimally small that it reinforces the above point
- partisan dogmas reinforce point 1 further
Second part is where I was hoping the author would give more practical path forward. Was a bit frustrating that he doesn’t. Still a good read. Could’ve been great, the material was right there!
July 14, 2019
Somin applies the literature on rational ignorance and the intelligence of democracy to questions of federalism and judicial review. He argues that federalism is "smarter" than centralized decision-making--voters tend to be more knowledgeable of issues at lower levels of government since the relative costs and benefits of becoming informed favor more learning than at higher levels of government. A further mechanism by which federalism might enjoy greater intelligence is jurisdictional competition. Somin claims that "exit" under jurisdictional competition incentivizes movers to inform themselves.
This book also defends a provocative theory of judicial review. Somin claims that an implication of voter ignorance undermines a democratic argument against judicial review, since voter ignorance suggests that striking down a democratically enacted law needn't involve thwarting the will of the majority.
Democracy and Political Ignorance is an engaging examination of the implications of political knowledge for institutional and constitutional design.
This book also defends a provocative theory of judicial review. Somin claims that an implication of voter ignorance undermines a democratic argument against judicial review, since voter ignorance suggests that striking down a democratically enacted law needn't involve thwarting the will of the majority.
Democracy and Political Ignorance is an engaging examination of the implications of political knowledge for institutional and constitutional design.
March 11, 2017
The book was informative and exasperating all at the same time. The first half of the book does an excellent job of describing how poorly informed the voting public is, with huge percentages of the population unfamiliar with even very basic facts about their elected representatives and the issues that come up before them. One is left with the impression that we would be as well off flipping coins to elect representatives as we are submitting the questions to the votes of citizens who are largely ignorant of the issues. The author also does a very good job of explaining why various "shortcuts" employed by voters (such as relying upon party affiliation or endorsements of respected leaders or celebrities) don't solve the problems created by political ignorance.
I had more problems with the second half of the book, which purported to discuss possible solutions to the political ignorance problem. It felt very incomplete. On several occasions, the author would delve into an issue, then cut it off, explaining that a comprehensive discussion of the issue was beyond the scope of the book. Other issues were given extensive discussions, despite the fact that the adoption of such "solutions" would be either completely impractical or unconstitutional. For example, there is a discussion about restricting voting rights to persons who can pass a test of political knowledge, or giving extra votes to voters with a high degree of knowledge. He acknowledges that there are many practical problems in administering such a structure, but doesn't really discuss the "one person, one vote" principle of constitutional law or the history of literacy tests for voting and similar issues. This is surprising, because the author has written extensively on constitutional issues elsewhere.
The conclusion that the author draws from the data discussed in the book is that there are too many issues handled by the national government and that many issues now handled at the federal level would be better addressed in the private sector or by state or local governments. This would lead, in the author's opinion, to more "foot voting," which the author feels is superior to ballot box voting. The expectation is that government would be less uniform throughout the country and the differences among the states would lead to more people "voting with their feet." In other words, if you don't like how things are in Maine, you can vote with your feet and move to Kansas.
The author's conclusion in this regard is poorly supported. There isn't any data included to suggest that voters are any better informed about issues handled by state governments or local governments than they are about issues taken care of at the federal level. And the practical difficulties with relocating obviously limit the effect of "foot voting." In addition, as the author concedes, many issues have to be handled by the federal government, though there is obviously much debate as to the degree of control that the federal government should have.
At the end of the book, in the conclusion, the author gives several examples of other countries that are thriving democracies and which have a much lower degree of centralized government than the US does. Such examples would seem to supply strong support for the author's advocacy of decentralized government, but there is no detailed discussion, just the brief treatment in the book's conclusion. I found this a bit frustrating. I think that the reader would have been better served if the experiences of other democracies were examined in more detail, and some of the discussion of impractical "solutions" to political ignorance curtailed.
Overall, the book examines an important issue, though not always in a satisfying way. Political ignorance is obviously a serious problem, particularly when politicians try to take advantage of it by distorting facts and by formulating policy positions designed to appeal to the voters' biases, rather than to their intelligence.
I had more problems with the second half of the book, which purported to discuss possible solutions to the political ignorance problem. It felt very incomplete. On several occasions, the author would delve into an issue, then cut it off, explaining that a comprehensive discussion of the issue was beyond the scope of the book. Other issues were given extensive discussions, despite the fact that the adoption of such "solutions" would be either completely impractical or unconstitutional. For example, there is a discussion about restricting voting rights to persons who can pass a test of political knowledge, or giving extra votes to voters with a high degree of knowledge. He acknowledges that there are many practical problems in administering such a structure, but doesn't really discuss the "one person, one vote" principle of constitutional law or the history of literacy tests for voting and similar issues. This is surprising, because the author has written extensively on constitutional issues elsewhere.
The conclusion that the author draws from the data discussed in the book is that there are too many issues handled by the national government and that many issues now handled at the federal level would be better addressed in the private sector or by state or local governments. This would lead, in the author's opinion, to more "foot voting," which the author feels is superior to ballot box voting. The expectation is that government would be less uniform throughout the country and the differences among the states would lead to more people "voting with their feet." In other words, if you don't like how things are in Maine, you can vote with your feet and move to Kansas.
The author's conclusion in this regard is poorly supported. There isn't any data included to suggest that voters are any better informed about issues handled by state governments or local governments than they are about issues taken care of at the federal level. And the practical difficulties with relocating obviously limit the effect of "foot voting." In addition, as the author concedes, many issues have to be handled by the federal government, though there is obviously much debate as to the degree of control that the federal government should have.
At the end of the book, in the conclusion, the author gives several examples of other countries that are thriving democracies and which have a much lower degree of centralized government than the US does. Such examples would seem to supply strong support for the author's advocacy of decentralized government, but there is no detailed discussion, just the brief treatment in the book's conclusion. I found this a bit frustrating. I think that the reader would have been better served if the experiences of other democracies were examined in more detail, and some of the discussion of impractical "solutions" to political ignorance curtailed.
Overall, the book examines an important issue, though not always in a satisfying way. Political ignorance is obviously a serious problem, particularly when politicians try to take advantage of it by distorting facts and by formulating policy positions designed to appeal to the voters' biases, rather than to their intelligence.
October 20, 2017
I would recommend that this work be read in tandem with Christopher Achens' and Larry Bartels' work, "Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government."
Both books take as their common starting point multiple studies that have demonstrated some rather dismal facts about voter behavior (focused on the United States but, given all of the various elections and referenda throughout Europe in the past year, I suspect the findings apply to their citizens as well): low levels of participation by eligible voters, remarkable ignorance about issues and candidates, the appeal of non-substantive "arguments" by candidates and parties, and the tendency to think and vote in tribal, decidedly partisan ways that self-blind to facts that do not conform to "their own" candidates' or parties' viewpoints.
Somin's conclusions from all of this admittedly discouraging information (for those of us who believe that "government of, by, and for the people" remains rather an important goal) is to essentially withdrawn from "all that democratic jazz" [my words] and, instead, work towards greater decentralization of government (which I support) and a passive recognition that "market forces" and voters' ability "to vote with their feet" -- choosing, thereby, to leave less hospitable political units in search of more favorable ones -- are more likely to achieve balanced goals than more government regulation or intervention (statements I do not agree with).
For one objection to this, I note that "market forces" are hardly "neutral" but are, rather, essentially guided by the policies put in place by followers of the wealthy elite. For another, while some citizens may have the wherewithall to "vote with their feet" many more -- the majority, I suspect -- do not and such an approach effectively consigns them to being stuck with unjust or unresponsive governments.
The problems we face really are quite grave, and the behavior of all too many citizens is more than depressing, BUT there are clues in the studies documented more thoroughly by Achens and Bartels' book that actually suggest remedies!
For, in that book, one learns that a great deal of disappointing voter behavior is actually -- and surprisingly -- RATIONAL! That is, confronted with partisan gerrymandered districts and non-responsive political parties (one of which, the Republican, has been completed captured by the ideological, unreasoning far Right), many voters just say, in effect, "the hell with it. Since my vote will not make any difference at all, I'm not going to invest much time in studying 'the issues' or candidates. Even if there is someone I like running, the odds are that the entire situation is so fixed that she/he cannot win."
In other words, a great number of our fellow citizens understand that "the fix is in," that the overwhelming power exercised by the wealthy elite, and which has been only greatly enhanced in recent years by decisions of the Supreme Court, increased tribalization of ideological politics, and the success Republicans have had in engineering districts so that their minorities repeatedly win a majority of the seats has rendered the voice of the "average citizen" null and void.
While it is not too late to make the changes we need to if we are to restore our democratic republic, it IS very late in the process!
Rather than the more passive approach counseled by Professor Somin, I think the needed responsive is to actively fight for the Republic the Constitution gave us!
Both books take as their common starting point multiple studies that have demonstrated some rather dismal facts about voter behavior (focused on the United States but, given all of the various elections and referenda throughout Europe in the past year, I suspect the findings apply to their citizens as well): low levels of participation by eligible voters, remarkable ignorance about issues and candidates, the appeal of non-substantive "arguments" by candidates and parties, and the tendency to think and vote in tribal, decidedly partisan ways that self-blind to facts that do not conform to "their own" candidates' or parties' viewpoints.
Somin's conclusions from all of this admittedly discouraging information (for those of us who believe that "government of, by, and for the people" remains rather an important goal) is to essentially withdrawn from "all that democratic jazz" [my words] and, instead, work towards greater decentralization of government (which I support) and a passive recognition that "market forces" and voters' ability "to vote with their feet" -- choosing, thereby, to leave less hospitable political units in search of more favorable ones -- are more likely to achieve balanced goals than more government regulation or intervention (statements I do not agree with).
For one objection to this, I note that "market forces" are hardly "neutral" but are, rather, essentially guided by the policies put in place by followers of the wealthy elite. For another, while some citizens may have the wherewithall to "vote with their feet" many more -- the majority, I suspect -- do not and such an approach effectively consigns them to being stuck with unjust or unresponsive governments.
The problems we face really are quite grave, and the behavior of all too many citizens is more than depressing, BUT there are clues in the studies documented more thoroughly by Achens and Bartels' book that actually suggest remedies!
For, in that book, one learns that a great deal of disappointing voter behavior is actually -- and surprisingly -- RATIONAL! That is, confronted with partisan gerrymandered districts and non-responsive political parties (one of which, the Republican, has been completed captured by the ideological, unreasoning far Right), many voters just say, in effect, "the hell with it. Since my vote will not make any difference at all, I'm not going to invest much time in studying 'the issues' or candidates. Even if there is someone I like running, the odds are that the entire situation is so fixed that she/he cannot win."
In other words, a great number of our fellow citizens understand that "the fix is in," that the overwhelming power exercised by the wealthy elite, and which has been only greatly enhanced in recent years by decisions of the Supreme Court, increased tribalization of ideological politics, and the success Republicans have had in engineering districts so that their minorities repeatedly win a majority of the seats has rendered the voice of the "average citizen" null and void.
While it is not too late to make the changes we need to if we are to restore our democratic republic, it IS very late in the process!
Rather than the more passive approach counseled by Professor Somin, I think the needed responsive is to actively fight for the Republic the Constitution gave us!
June 27, 2023
Somin’s book explores the relationship between democracy and citizen knowledge. Somin argues that the majority of voters are largely ignorant about political issues, and this ignorance poses significant problems for the functioning of democracy.
The book begins by highlighting the limited knowledge of the average citizen regarding political issues, which includes basic knowledge about the structure of government, public policies, and the political system as a whole. Somin contends that this lack of knowledge is due to a variety of conditions and circumstances, and that it is a systemic problem inherent in democratic systems. He elaborates ways in which political ignorance affects democratic processes, noting that voters often make decisions based on emotions, tribal affiliations, or shallow understandings of complex issues, rather than on informed and rational analysis. This phenomenon can be shown to lead to suboptimal policy outcomes and the perpetuation of harmful policies.
Somin also examines the impact of political ignorance on such aspects of democracy as voting behavior, political participation, and public opinion. He suggests that political ignorance undermines the effectiveness of elections and weakens the incentives for politicians to be responsive to citizens' interests. It also opens the door for interest groups and elites to manipulate public opinion and policy-making processes.
In the later parts of the book, Somin explores potential solutions to the problem of political ignorance. He discusses the merits of reducing the scope and power of government, limiting the influence of interest groups, and enhancing the role of decentralized decision-making. Somin also advocates for reforms such as improving civic education, increasing the use of political decentralization, and promoting mechanisms that enable citizens to make more informed decisions.
The book provides a thought-provoking analysis of the challenges posed by citizen ignorance in democratic systems. Somin raises important questions about the effectiveness and legitimacy of democratic governance and offers suggestions for addressing the issue of political ignorance in order to strengthen democratic decision-making.
The book begins by highlighting the limited knowledge of the average citizen regarding political issues, which includes basic knowledge about the structure of government, public policies, and the political system as a whole. Somin contends that this lack of knowledge is due to a variety of conditions and circumstances, and that it is a systemic problem inherent in democratic systems. He elaborates ways in which political ignorance affects democratic processes, noting that voters often make decisions based on emotions, tribal affiliations, or shallow understandings of complex issues, rather than on informed and rational analysis. This phenomenon can be shown to lead to suboptimal policy outcomes and the perpetuation of harmful policies.
Somin also examines the impact of political ignorance on such aspects of democracy as voting behavior, political participation, and public opinion. He suggests that political ignorance undermines the effectiveness of elections and weakens the incentives for politicians to be responsive to citizens' interests. It also opens the door for interest groups and elites to manipulate public opinion and policy-making processes.
In the later parts of the book, Somin explores potential solutions to the problem of political ignorance. He discusses the merits of reducing the scope and power of government, limiting the influence of interest groups, and enhancing the role of decentralized decision-making. Somin also advocates for reforms such as improving civic education, increasing the use of political decentralization, and promoting mechanisms that enable citizens to make more informed decisions.
The book provides a thought-provoking analysis of the challenges posed by citizen ignorance in democratic systems. Somin raises important questions about the effectiveness and legitimacy of democratic governance and offers suggestions for addressing the issue of political ignorance in order to strengthen democratic decision-making.
August 12, 2024
The book contains excellent critique of majority rule, based on the concepts of rational ignorance (it is not rational for the voter to invest time into acquiring sufficient political knowledge) and rational irrationality (it is rational for the voter to remain irrational to satisfy his/her various irrational biases, as the vote costs virtually nothing).
The overview of possible solutions for mitigating inherent ignorance of the public is very interesting and rather comprehensive. However, in my opinion, the author overestimates “foot-voting” by the voters, underestimates the shift towards more meritocracy (rule by experts) as possible solutions.
The overview of possible solutions for mitigating inherent ignorance of the public is very interesting and rather comprehensive. However, in my opinion, the author overestimates “foot-voting” by the voters, underestimates the shift towards more meritocracy (rule by experts) as possible solutions.
August 6, 2019
I used to think that this book will contain everythin but it isnt so...
Yeah
Kinda a waste of time to read this if ure not interested in politics at all, but at least it tells why u should be engaged into politics which isnt supposed to be dirty at all?
Yeah
Kinda a waste of time to read this if ure not interested in politics at all, but at least it tells why u should be engaged into politics which isnt supposed to be dirty at all?
March 23, 2018
I don’t really agree with his really lack of a solution, but there are some good ideas presented that I never thought about.
September 12, 2016
Important reminder that facts matter
We are increasingly told that we live in a "post-factual" society, where ideology and populism trump reality. This poignant book drives home the point that voters do not have the information we may think they do. While I do not agree with all of Professor Somin's solutions to the problems of political ignorance, I agree that it's a significant problem that's unlikely to be solved anytime soon. The book is well argued and well written.
We are increasingly told that we live in a "post-factual" society, where ideology and populism trump reality. This poignant book drives home the point that voters do not have the information we may think they do. While I do not agree with all of Professor Somin's solutions to the problems of political ignorance, I agree that it's a significant problem that's unlikely to be solved anytime soon. The book is well argued and well written.
October 27, 2016
there's some good info here, but it's needlessly verbose and extremely repetitive. also, as a hemorrhaging-heart Rooseveltian liberal, I find his proposed solution of decentralization rather distasteful, although given the title I'm not sure what I was expecting.
August 4, 2014
Agreed with very little of this, but it's an indispensable read for any small-d democrat.
July 21, 2016
Very scholarly, but slow.
May 26, 2025
Democracy in its current form is very very expensive. for everybody. It needs to be innovated. For example, people need to be able to vote from home (E-DEMOCRACY????)
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews