The Senate Rules (Pun Unintended) - Cruz's Talk-a-thon

Senator Ted Cruz's fake filibuster lasted 21 hours and seemed to not only confuse many in the American public, but the Senator and Senate Majority Leader as well.  The real confusion came at 11:30pm when Senator Harry Reid came to floor to address some of Senator Cruz's questions and unanimous consent requests.  It appears that Senator Cruz thought his time ended at exactly 12:00pm and Senator Reid thought Cruz's time actually went to 1:00pm. 

While it may seem like the Majority Leader has complete control of the agenda, and can manipulate it accordingly - that is not always the case.  Here, both Senators attempted to adhere to the rules of the Senate but as you can see from the video, Senator Cruz had control of the floor, and if he had started his talk-a-thon as an actual filibuster, he could have prevented voting for the day for quite a bit longer.  The Senate is unique in that the fewer number of members allows for each individual's voice to be heard and weighted more.  Comparatively, in the House of Representatives, no member could speak for as long as they wanted and prevent the days agenda completely.  It is harder to manipulate the order of voting in the Senate if any member of the opposition (in this case, a tea-party freshman) can take control of the floor and refuse to yield time. 

Rosario Dawson Fails To Understand Rational Abstention

This CNN op-ed by Rosario Dawson seeks to persuade disenfranchised minority citizens to vote in this November's gubernatorial and mayoral elections by appealing to several unconvincing justifications for voting. Dawson appeals to a sense of civic duty, as "voting is the bedrock of our democracy” and a means for citizens to “take ownership of [their] communities.” However, such appeals are ineffective, as voter abstention and rational ignorance are both sensible consequences of the American democratic structure.

Dawson suggests "voting is the easiest way to make your opinion known on any issue,” yet disenfranchised voters are not moved to vote by utility gains, social pressure, or a sense of ‘civic duty’ to overcome the cost of voting and make it to the polls. A rational voter will only vote when his marginal benefit exceeds his marginal costs. The marginal costs for voters, particularly the lower-income minorities that this article targets, will be relatively high, in terms of lost wages or the opportunity cost of taking the time to educate oneself on important issues. In some locales, the marginal cost is even higher due to restrictive photo ID laws, limited voting locations and hours, and tedious paperwork. While the National Voter Registration Day initiative alleviates the cost of the paperwork, the costs will still exceed the expected marginal benefit derived from voting. The probability of a vote being decisive is extremely low, so that even if the magnitude of the value gained from electing a preferred representative is very high, the expected marginal benefit of the average disenfranchised voter will be negligibly low.  

Instead of appealing to a sense of civic duty, Dawson’s campaign would be more effective if it focused on making voting costless or increasing the social pressure on those who do not vote.

Fannie and Freddie, a public good?

As many people know, the federal government is currently trying to decide how the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should function in the future, if they should even exist at all. As this Wall Street Journal article explains, the three options currently being discussed include keeping the firms as middle men that bundle together mortgages and sell them to investors, getting rid of the firms entirely and have mortgages originate solely from private institutions, or replacing/reorganizing the firms with an institution that would basically insure mortgage-backed securities in a way similar to how the FDIC insures bank deposits.

One of the main sticking points in this discussion is that the existence of Fannie and Freddie gives American homeowners access to the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, something that is not available in most other countries. My question is, should access to a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage and a mortgage market essentially devoid of credit risk (when Fannie and Freddie cover for homeowners who default) be a public good? This kind of mortgage market definitely could be a public good, as it is both non-rival and non-exclusionary.

The main reason to offer non-exclusionary goods as public is because of the free-rider problem. One solution might be to only offer fixed-rate mortgages and lower rates to borrowers who have purchased some form of insurance in case of default. If this is infeasible, or could not be created in a private market, the existence of Fannie and Freddie just might have to continue as a public good.

Low Voter Turnout in Los Angeles

An article in the New York Times explains how the 2013 mayoral primary election in Los Angeles produced the lowest voter turnout since 1978.  Only 21 percent of registered voters turned out to the polls.  The article speculates on the possible explanations for such a low turnout.  The suggested reasons include poor weather, fatigue from past elections, or that people are just not passionate about it.  As we learned in class, rational abstention explains why many people believe it makes sense not to vote.

Unfortunately, voting is not costless because people have to take the time and energy to get to the ballot.  If the voter values his time more than he values the benefit of the person winning, then he will not vote.  Rational abstention occurs when a voter realizes that the probability of their vote affecting the outcome of the race is extremely small; therefore, their cost to vote outweighs the benefits of voting so they do not vote.  The article describes as well how disappointed some people are in the low turnout.  Steve Soboroff, who ran for mayor in 2001 was quoted as saying, "The idea that it is socially acceptable not to vote, but people talk about where they get their shoes from, is shameful."  As we learned from class, there are three reasons that people vote: utility, civic duty, and social pressure.  Clearly social pressure does not exist in L.A. if it is deemed socially acceptable not to.  If Los Angeles can inspire their voters to take advantage of their right to vote, then civic duty may increase and so will voter turnout.

Healthcare Reform and Rational Ignorance

This recent article from Politico describes the beginning of the implementation of the Affordable Healthcare Act in Kentucky. The state has developed their own program called Kynect, and recently set up an information booth at the state fair to inform citizens of upcoming changes and answer questions. However, the article tellingly highlights how little the people of Kentucky actually know about the details of the new health care plan. Rational ignorance can clearly explain this. The Affordable Healthcare Act is very complicated to understand and taking the time to read the extensive bill has very high opportunity costs. The marginal benefit of a better understanding of the new health care system is much less than the marginal cost of taking the time and effort to decipher the plan. Therefore, most people are rational in their decision to remain ignorant about the specifics of the new law.

As the article describes, Kynect is working to inform citizens about the health care law’s implications for their lives. Events like the one at the state fair are intentional efforts to combat rational ignorance. Still, as is described in the Politico piece, much work remains to be done. A recent survey quoted in the article from the Kaiser Family Foundation “found that 44 percent of those surveyed weren’t even sure if the law was still on the books — many thought it had been repealed or tossed out by the Supreme Court.”

Voters in NJ care more about vacation

New Jersey faces a rare political event this year: the primary for the election to fill one of New Jersey's Senate seats is both in an off year and at an off time. According to the 

New Jersey Star Ledger voters in New Jersey may turn out to the polls in close to record low numbers for the mid-August primary. Potential voters like Don Nociolo, a New Jersey resident, said he would not vote because the elections are in the middle of his vacation and he already knows that Newark Mayor Cory Booker will win.

This addresses two important issues we discussed in class: Since Booker has such a strong lead in the polls, voters have little faith that they can affect the outcome of the vote (meaning the benefit of voting decreases substantially). As well, voters on vacation have a higher cost to voting, because their next best alternative to voting is getting to relax on the sands at the beach. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's choice of an off-year, off-month primary will drive down voter turnout in New Jersey, but voters will be making rational decisons the whole time.

Vote or Die

During the 2004 presidential election P Diddy tried to institutionalize the social pressure that goes along with voting that we discussed in class. THIS link shows the Vote or Die campaign by Diddy to try and make voting "sexy" as he puts it. This is an interesting twist on the social pressure that we talked about though. This campaign was trying to generate social pressure for people less likely to vote, mostly young voters. Also, this campaign was trying to generate social pressures in an urban environment as opposed to a smaller community where everyone knows each other. He also got A list celebrities like Paris Hilton and Mariah Carey (it was 2004 when these people were still relevant) to support his campaign trying to create social pressure for young voters.

This campaign was critiqued as glorified voter intimidation and a poor publicity stunt disguised as an attempt to make a difference. Diddy justified his campaign as trying to make a difference and strengthen our democracy, which plays on the ethical pressure aspects we talked about in class: people can rarely give a good reason why they don't vote or why they don't support a campaign trying to raise voter participation. Voter participation by youth did raise in 2004, the specific data is here, but I don't know if we should attribute this specifically to Vote or Die.

Pump It Up

     This piece from Slate gets at an issue near and dear to my heart: my home state New Jersey’s laws regarding gas stations. New Jersey and Oregon are the only two states in the nation where pumping your own gas is illegal, and attendants fill your car for you. The law is ostensibly in place for safety reasons – the state does not want people handling flammable chemicals – but it has been kept in place in the name of job preservation. Despite all stations being full-service and having to pay attendants, New Jersey has lower gas prices that all of its immediate neighbors (Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut and Delaware). The state does this by keeping the gasoline tax low, and the author takes issue with this.
     He frames it in terms of missed opportunities. “[A gasoline tax] penalizes an environmental externality (burning fuel), and since poor people tend not to own cars, it doesn't have the regressive implications of a sales tax.” It is an interesting point; New Jersey could be better served moving to self-serve gas stations (48 others state deem their citizens competent enough to handle gas nozzles) and increasing revenue by raising the gasoline tax. Keeping attendants at gas stations seems to artificially create jobs, as gas stations around the country do not demonstrate the same need for employment as those in New Jersey or Oregon. 
     This would probably a tough sell to residents of the state. It is not always easy to convince people to change from their accustomed policy because a new one would be more economically efficient. Plus, having lived through many New Jersey winters, not having to leave your car is pretty nice.