On 19 March 2025, the Rafael del Pino Foundation organised the Master Conference ".Liberal voices: democracy and policy choice"Bryan Caplan gave a talk on the occasion of his latest work The myth of the rational voter: why democracies choose bad policies published by Deusto.
Bryan Caplan is a Professor of Economics at George Mason University and bestselling author of the New York Times. He is renowned for his research in political economy, labour markets and public policy. He has written a number of influential books, among them The Myth of the Rational Voter, The Case Against Education y Open Borders. He is also editor and main writer of the blog Bet On Ithosted by the Salem Center for Policy at the University of Texas. His articles have been published in prestigious media, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, TIME, Newsweek y The Atlantic. He has also contributed with academic publications in journals such as American Economic Review, Economic Journal y Journal of Law and Economics. Throughout his career, he has appeared on ABC, BBC, Fox News, MSNBC y C-SPANHe has become a leading figure in debates on economics and politics.
Summary:
On 19 March 2025, the Rafael del Pino Foundation hosted the Keynote Conference "Liberal Voices: Democracy and Public Policy Choice".The event, held on the occasion of the publication in Spanish of his influential work, was given by the renowned economist Bryan Caplan. The event, held on the occasion of the publication in Spanish of his influential work The myth of the rational voterThe conference provided the setting for an in-depth analysis of the systematic biases that affect democratic decision-making and the consequences they have on public policy-making.
The paradox of democracy: irrational voters, wrong decisions
In his speech, Caplan presented the central idea of his book: democracy, far from being a system where decisions reflect the common interest of an informed society, is deeply biased by the ignorance of the average voter. According to the economist, there is a belief that citizens' general ignorance of politics and economics does not affect the quality of the policies adopted, since, in theory, individual mistakes would compensate for each other, resulting in a reasonable collective decision. This principle, known as the miracle of aggregationis, in Caplan's view, incorrect. Voter errors are not random, but systematic, leading to harmful policy choices.
Four biases that distort decision making
Throughout his presentation, Caplan detailed four biases that condition voters' judgement and, in turn, explain why democracies often opt for inefficient or counterproductive economic policies:
Anti-market biasThere is a misperception that the success of economically successful companies and individuals is achieved at the expense of others. This thinking ignores the benefits that markets generate in terms of growth, employment and welfare.
Anti-foreign bias: Fear of international competition and distrust of immigration cause voters to support protectionist measures that, far from strengthening the national economy, weaken it by limiting the free movement of goods, services and talent.
Pro-employment biasCitizens tend to evaluate policies in terms of their impact on job creation, without considering that the real objective of an economy is not to create jobs per se, but wealth and productivity. Caplan illustrated this point with an anecdote from Milton Friedman, who, observing a group of workers digging with shovels instead of using machinery, ironically remarked: "If you want to create jobs, why don't you give them spoons instead of shovels?
Pessimistic biasThere is a widespread tendency to believe that the economy and society are in decline, even when the evidence shows otherwise. This pessimism encourages the adoption of interventionist policies that seek to "correct" non-existent or misdiagnosed problems.
Democracy vs. the market: incentives and rationality
One of the key points of the conference was the comparison between democratic and market decision-making. Caplan argued that, while individuals have incentives to act rationally in their economic decisions - as their mistakes have direct welfare consequences - the same principle does not apply to voting. Since the individual impact of a vote is minimal, citizens can afford to hold irrational beliefs without directly affecting their lives.
To illustrate this idea, Caplan proposed a thought experiment: if a person were about to buy a car and received conflicting information about its quality, they would probably do research until they were sure to make the best decision, since a bad choice would cost them money. However, in politics, where a single vote rarely changes the outcome of an election, there is no real incentive for citizens to make the effort to inform themselves or to question their beliefs.
How to improve the quality of democratic decision-making?
Given this diagnosis, Caplan proposed several strategies to mitigate the effects of voter irrationality and improve the quality of public policies:
Depoliticising certain decisionsSome key areas of the economy and governance should be protected from electoral volatility and left to experts or to the market itself.
Impose qualified majority rulesFor high-impact decisions, instead of a simple majority of 51%, 66% or more could be required, thus reducing the risk of impulsive or populist decisions.
Increasing the weight of expertsWhile Caplan acknowledged that experts are not infallible and can be biased, he felt that their opinion, generally speaking, tends to be more informed than that of the average voter.
Weighted voting systems or systems with knowledge requirementsHe raised the possibility of implementing knowledge tests for voting or systems in which the votes of people with more information on certain issues would carry more weight.
Avoid indiscriminate voting promotion campaigns.The economist said that the message of "get out and vote" without further context is problematic, as it encourages participation by people who have not sufficiently reflected on their decision. Instead, he argued for the need to promote a civic culture based on responsibility and critical analysis.
Is democracy in danger?
In closing, Caplan addressed the question of the future of democracy. While acknowledging that populism and misinformation are real problems, he was sceptical of doomsday visions predicting the collapse of the democratic system. He argued that, throughout history, politics has always been marked by conflict and irrationality, and that institutional stability, combined with technological and economic progress, makes a total collapse of democracy in the short to medium term unlikely.
Furthermore, he criticised the tendency of some analysts to call any election result that does not conform to their ideological preferences a "democratic deficit", pointing out that democracy, by definition, implies accepting results that we may not like.
Conclusion
Bryan Caplan's lecture at the Rafael del Pino Foundation made it clear that democracy, although valued as the best system of government, is not free of structural problems. Voter irrationality and systematic biases in decision-making generate suboptimal policies that could be corrected with reforms aimed at strengthening the influence of reason and knowledge in the political sphere.
His message, far from being a condemnation of democracy, is a call for reflection: if we really want to improve our system of government, we must recognise its flaws and seek ways to minimise its shortcomings, rather than assuming that the popular vote is infallible.
The Rafael del Pino Foundation is not responsible for the comments, opinions or statements made by the people who participate in its activities and which are expressed as a result of their inalienable right to freedom of expression and under their sole responsibility. The contents included in the summary of this conference are the result of the debates held at the meeting held for this purpose at the Foundation and are the responsibility of their authors.
The Rafael del Pino Foundation is not responsible for any comments, opinions or statements made by third parties. In this respect, the FRP is not obliged to monitor the views expressed by such third parties who participate in its activities and which are expressed as a result of their inalienable right to freedom of expression and under their own responsibility. The contents included in the summary of this conference are the result of the discussions that took place during the conference organised for this purpose at the Foundation and are the sole responsibility of its authors.
