taxpayers vote for a party that advocates lower taxes on the rich and
lower transfers to the poor.
On the other hand, the characterization is close to the mark in many
cases. Most of us have read of politicians whose only principle appears to
be “What will get me the most votes?” And many voters ask only “What’s
in it for me?” This is why the theory can take us a long way in
understanding what we see, even though real behaviour is more complex.
Here is one example relevant to Canada and many other developed
economies. Why, despite strong advice from economists to the contrary,
have governments persisted for decades in designing policies that favour
farmers at the expense of consumers and taxpayers? Public choice theory
considers the winners and losers among the voters.
The winners from such agricultural policies are farmers. They are a
politically powerful group and are aware of what they will lose if farm
supports are reduced. They would show their disapproval of such action
by voting against any government that even suggests it. The losers are the
entire group of consumers or taxpayers. Although they are more
numerous than farmers, and although their total loss is large, each
individual suffers only a small loss. Citizens have more important things
to worry about, and so they do not vote against the government just
because it supports farmers. As long as the average voters are
unconcerned about, and often unaware of, the losses they suffer, the
vote-maximizing government will ignore the interests of the many and
support the interests of the few. The vote-maximizing government will