Why politicians don’t respond to good evidence
People seem to be puzzled at politicians’ inability to respond to apparently clear data that suggests something ought to be done. I am putting up the proposal that the current crop are following a long tradition of if you don’t like the data, ignore it, or keep looking for some that confirms your prejudices.
Take a simple issue like abortion law reform and see why even politicians those who, according to new data support change and have electoral support as well may still do nothing, This can be seen in the latest flurry of this debate which again has raised questions on why politicians are not responding to obvious popular support for changing the laws. Katherine Betts’ latest effort (People and Place) reiterates her earlier figures that show the majority of voters, and even of politicians, are in favor of women’s right to choose. Yet in Queensland and NSW there are serious concerns, including by Anna Bligh, that any attempt to remove abortion from the Crimes Act, may not only be lost but may also wind back the current reasonably functional status quo that follows precedent judgments.
To understand why this gap exists between politicians’ actions and pollster data requires an understanding of why only some polls affect political process. I learned the limits of data in my 1974 lobbying efforts on a similar topic. The Mackenzie Lamb Bill sought to legalise abortions in the ACT and I organised the new Women’s Electoral Lobby to undertake surveys of local electors in a number of crucial areas. As an ex market researchers we were careful with the design and collected thousands of responses to a question on women having a right to terminate if they chose to. We covered multiple electorates of those who opposed the bill. Positive responses ranged from 65% to 90% so we took the results to Parliament House.
Liz Reid, the new women’s adviser, took the tabulations and sampling details to the MPs. She returned and showed me the response from Rex F.X. O’Connor. He had written on the bottom, ‘yes but they were all publics’ ie non Catholics. Others similarly decided not to believe us so we lost. I realised then that politicians believed their prejudices rather than evidence. The 200,000 bulk letters from Right to Life were believed , not our much more representative survey.
Abortion is a particularly vivid illustration of this phenomenon because it is a conscience vote and there is no party discipline to counter personal prejudices. Socially conservative, mainly still male, politicians can be seen as principled by their minority supporters. This also raises the issue of whether some conscience votes make bad laws as the absurd current case in Queensland of someone procuring their own termination illustrates. Despite that, I am wary about pushing abortion change in NSW because of my doubts that the NSW Parliament would act as responsibly as those in Victoria and the ACT have recently done. If the Shooters Party can hold the ALP government to ransom, why would one expect reasonable responses from them on this emotive issue?
This is an individual example of politicians believing their own mythologies but it happens at party level too. Another example is politicians and advisers deny the consistent findings over the last decade plus that people would prefer Governments to fund better services than give them tax cuts. The reason given has been that people are obviously lying in their responses because votes can be bought! The evidence was the 1980 Fraser election!!!
Given this track record, it is not surprising that complex issues such as climate change measures fail to get up. Why would politicians trained in the art of avoiding making rational decisions be any better on literally earth shattering issues than the example above? There are too many examples of politicians and parties who make decisions on the basis of prejudice and political advantage to assume good policy making as a norm. I recognise that data, particularly from surveys, may be contestable but this does not excuse ignoring good evidence. Indigenous policy is another area where evidence is regularly ignored, as noted publicly by Fiona Stanley.
Decisions that attract public debate and fervour are too often based on fear, prejudices, media hype, and limited access to diverse viewpoints. So people need to understand that many political decisions are not rational or even evidence based. This deficit allows noisy or clever (often expensive) lobbying to play into anxieties about voter backlashes, particularly where small swings can make a difference and because politicians want to believe those who reinforce long held political prejudices.
This means those of us who push unpopular or difficult issues need to be very aware that having good solid data is only the starting point for achieving political change. Politicians can make irrational decisions but those challenging them, do need the facts and know how to use them.
15 Comments
Eva:
(Crikey edit: lets not make this personal please. )
Decisions that attract public debate and fervour are too often based on fear, prejudices, media hype, and limited access to diverse viewpoints. So people need to understand that many political decisions are not rational or even evidence based. This deficit allows noisy or clever (often expensive) lobbying to play into anxieties about voter backlashes, particularly where small swings can make a difference and because politicians want to believe those who reinforce long held political prejudices.
Gee Eva, you’ve described democracy and the democratic process by default and the amusing thing is you don’t even know you’re doing so. One disagreement though, Eva. Decisions are rational always so. It’s only that you don’t like them at times that makes you think they aren’t so.
(Edit: ditto)
Tee, those comments are a little uncharitable
Eva Cox is not clueless – its women like her that do the leg work for women’s rights – its the reason I can work and wear pants to work
She is merely saying how frustrating it is when noisy minority groups that are not representative of broader community sentiment score victories as distinct from people who are putting more evidence based policy making information to a politician. Politicians do want to believe those with long held political prejudices
To be so disparaging of Eva Cox does not do you any favors.
Assuming the comment by tee is cose to true, one can’t help wonder if democary can in fact handle anything like climate change. If our leaders ovderlook the facts and support only prejudices then I fear that the actions needed to deal with climate change will be inappropriate OR right but far too late to be effective. No where is this more true that where I live and the need for drinking water. No one on the Labor side will admit that the technology (the facts) is capable of purifying stormwater and human waste water to drinkable standards and is being done in some countries right now. Instead, the prejudice of wanting the glory of a desalination plant is being slammed down on us at a cost and a result that is inferior to cleaning water. So Eva, I too am aware of the facts versus prejudice syndrome and fear for the future.
The quality of your arguments matches your manners. Democracy is not based in fear and power games but in considering a case on the basis of evidence!
Eva:
Nice in theory. But as usual you don’t seem to understand. Democracy is messy and political parties primary duty is to those that voted for them. You may not like the results but that’s how it is.
I never said democracy is based on fear, you’re the one bringing that up as a way to ovoid the obvious.
It seems to me that you would prefer a more authoritarian set up, Eva. That is an authoritarian set up that closely resembles your views. It would be a lot more honest of you if you came out and said so.
In short if you don’t like the outcome, go and agitate and perhaps start up your own political party, however if you don’t get any votes don’t blame the system. Just admit the fact that your ideas simply don’t have wide support. I know it’s hard, however sometimes you need a reality check.
I agree that our democratic process is messy. However, a lot of the mess appears to be derived from the fact that our political parties don’t necessarily purport to represent everyone on every single issue. A party’s policies aren’t developed through by parlimentarians consultating with their constituents. They are often developed through negotiations between the various groups that lobby the party. I’m sure you are aware that many industries and/or special interest groups actively lobby governments all the time. Do these groups represent me or the broader community? Not necessarily. Do they have a greater opportunity to get access to decision makers? Definitely.
On your point regarding authoritarian government structures: the most efficient form of government is a benign dictatorship. Since democracy relies on the decision of the majority would you prefer that we all vote on every single decision needed at federal, state and local level? I would suggest not – very inefficient. So we offload that responsibility to our elected representitives and hope that they will actually represent the majority of their consituents. The issue that Eva starts to outline here is when this representation starts to break down. ‘…noisy or clever (often expensive) lobbying’ is one part of that problem. The ability of politicians to exploit or be exploited by these groups is another.
At some level politicians will, and should, have firm convictions of there own. When those convictions are at odds with you own view you might find this unsettling, but it works both ways. If a majority of the population (say) wanted some extreme measure taken against refugee boats at the height of some crisis with mob opinion fueled by tabloid headlines, I would hope that our politicians would stand firm on their convictions against it.
If a politician genuinely believes that human life does not start at birth, but does so an at earlier stage then their convictions will tell them to protect that life. The fact that a lobby group had conducted a survey that found majority support for what they genuiely may believe is murder is a not a good reason for someone to vote against such a conviction.
As a side note I find it a great historical shame that abortion has become a ‘gender’ issue. The ethical questions surrounding when life does or doesn’t begin has nothing to do with ‘a womens right to choose’. I’m an atheist, with no firm view on abortion either way, because I think it’s a difficult issue, but I don’t see debates about abortion being discussed at what I think is the key area, precisely when human life begins. On the one hand we have simplistic religious dogma and on the other hand simplistic ‘womens right to choose’ or ‘womens reproductive freedoms’ dogma which is equally ineffective at addressing the key point.
On your point regarding authoritarian government structures: the most efficient form of government is a benign dictatorship
Is it now? Would you mind pointing us in the direction of a successful ” benign dictatorship” that you and Eva seem to be advocating that is both a model of success, respects human right and the people have a very high standard of living. When you’ve done that please explain in detail why you’re individual desires would be better served under a totalitarian regime than a liberal democratic one.
The issue that Eva starts to outline here is when this representation starts to break down. ‘…noisy or clever (often expensive) lobbying’ is one part of that problem. The ability of politicians to exploit or be exploited by these groups is another.
That’s not true at all. Eva is stamping her feet and throwing a tantrum because the poor darling isn’t getting what she wants and then blames everyone else and accuses the system of failure when in fact all that seems to be happening is that her personal preferences aren’t being met.
Perhaps Eva could chime in here too as it seems that is what she is pining for.
Well done Tee – it is rare to see so many straw men and misrepresentations of what someone has written put together in such a short space. The fact that you also have to be so petulant in expressing rather spoils your efforts though.
Anyway, for the adults amongst us, the simple point of Eva Cox’s piece is – on some issues anyway – the fact that the majority of the public support an action, the majority of a party’s voters support it and any likely electoral ‘backlash’ form taking that action will be minimal or nil are still not enough to get politicians to agree to take that action.
It is an interesting and curious phenomenon which is certainly worthy of noting and exploring, regardless of whether one personally supports the majority view regarding that action or not.
An interesting corollary is to consider what would occur in a reverse situation. If a majority of politicians – say in Queensland Parliament to use a current example – did actually have a conscience vote and pass abortion laws which were a genuine attempt to further restrict access to abortion. Given the ample evidence, some of which Eva has pointed to, it is hard to believe there wouldn’t be a severe electoral backlash – about the only possible thing that could save the MPs who voted for such an action would be that it would probably be across party lines, making it harder for electoral punishment to be meted out by the majority of voters who would clearly oppose this action.
Interesting Andrew.
You find issues with my comments but not with Umberto who is openly advocating a totalitarian state as being a good thing. I can see why you weren’t that popular with your electors if you’re blindsided to a comment like that but find fault with my suggestion that democracy is a messy thing and Eva is throwing a little tantrum for not being able to get her way.
Good one.
You also missed the other comment, Andrew (conveniently ?) where the other joker says:
one can’t help wonder if democary(sic) can in fact handle anything like climate change. If our leaders ovderlook the facts and support only prejudices then I fear that the actions needed to deal with climate change will be inappropriate OR right but far too late to be effective
Two totalitarians on one Eva Cox thread and both you and Eva find fault with my comment rather these abominations.
It really gets curiouser and curiouser as to what appalls the left these days. In fact it’s down right shocking.
Eva,
Here is a better explanation that perhaps nobody has touched on. Its not *always* as simple as 80% of voters are for something, 20% opposed therefore politicians are sensible to go with the 80%.
As a hypotetical, lets say there is an 80/20 split as mentioned above, however the issue, for almost all of those in the 80%, is a low priority for them (ie its unlikely to change their vote), however of those in the 20% (its a high priority) and thus most of that 20% are willing to change their vote over it.
Clearly in this example, the ‘rational’ political choice for a party or a politician is to go with the minority opinion.
I’m not suggesting that all issues work like this, but i’m sure some do. And even the thought that something like this example applies (even if in reality its not the case) would be enough to scare a party or a politician from taking action.
I suspect this is the real reason (or at least the biggest reason), rather than delusion.
Tee – Every time I think there’s nothing worse than listening to some of the nonsense that the worst politicians come up, there’s always someone like you to come along and prove me wrong.
There are few characteristics more suited to totalitarianism than mindless propagandising and zero regard for truthfulness. Continually attacking others for saying things they didn’t actually say, and attacking others for not backing up your dishonest portrayals, is just part and parcel of the same mentality. The fact that you dishonestly misrepresent what other commenters say, in addition to the original author of the post, is even more reason not to engage further with your juvenile nonsense.
Anyway, I’ve wasted five minutes of my life that I will never get back responding to you – I certainly won’t waste any more.
Andrew please spare me the histrionics as it doesn’t work with me. I pointed out the obvious which was that you focused attention on my comments rather than those really appalling ones and now you’re attempting to smother me with dishonesty, ad homs and feigned morality. Enough.
And for Christ sake, Andrew, I always thought of you as better than a knee jerk leftie so I guess I was wrong.
Have you read what Cox is saying or did you miss that too?
On the one hand she explicitly says that she’s lobbied for her causes. Here:
The Mackenzie Lamb Bill sought to legalise abortions in the ACT and I organised the new Women’s Electoral Lobby to undertake surveys of local electors in a number of crucial areas.
She was lobbying or assisted lobbying efforts for what happens to be a pretty influential group on the left.
And then, without the slightest shudder as the hypocrisy meter red lining she says:
This deficit allows noisy or clever (often expensive) lobbying to play into anxieties about voter backlashes, particularly where small swings can make a difference and because politicians want to believe those who reinforce long held political prejudices.
So she had no problem with her own lobbying efforts through a pretty influential lobby group but seems to find fault in others using the same tactics but then is critical of the entire process she herself participates in.
And you don’t find this odd and hypocritical?
re Bogdanovist comment, I was carefully not supporting or condemining the content of any particular campaign, nor addressing the question of genuine conscience dilemmas. I acknowledge that there are times when governments should ignore public opinion and my family benefited from that in 1948 when we arrived here as immigrants, despite polls that rejected taking in Jewish refugeees.
The point I was trying to make, using my own experience as a base, was the problem of political decisions that were not based on data but on political prejudices and assumptions that ignore good evidence. I’m a strong advocate of democratic processes but that does not mean one ignores the flaws that these may incorporate and retain the right to criticise the imbalances of power and access that may distort a rational consideration of policy options.