Definition & Reality in the General Theory of Political Economy

by Thomas Cool

Introduction

The currently accepted view is sometimes expressed as that ‘there is no ideal voting scheme’. The former chapter destroyed that view. There is no mathematical reason to think that such an ideal cannot exist. Since Arrow’s axioms must be rejected, they do not form an ideal. An ideal still can exist, but apparently it is different than originally thought. Perhaps people have different ideals, but then the non-existence of a common ideal derives from empirically different opinions and not from mathematical reasons. Since people can benefit from co-operation, they can still aspire at a scheme that all can agree upon.

Above analysis does not answer the positive question yet what would be a generally good system. The main point here is that everyone should determine this for oneself. Theory can only help to remain consistent. The following is a suggestion for a scheme that is consistent and that could appeal to many.

Control of natural forces in the social process

One important idea is that time plays a role. The basis for this idea is that, abstractly, morality presupposes time. Without time there would be no morality. In a static world everything is given, and there is no place for an individual who has to ponder his or her moral choices. As economists, we can draw static utility functions and isoquants, but those are abstractions, and they might distract from the real moral problem. The moral problem is that now a decision has to be made while the consequences appear later. Afterwards, everything can be explained deterministically (which is the meaning of ‘explanation’), and by hypothesis, determinism will also hold for the future. Yet, in the mean time forecasts are imperfect, there is fundamental uncertainty, and that creates the possibility of morality (or the illusion of morality).

Economic science is intended to help explain reality. In this reality, we see an evolution of human beings in a social process of natural forces. The basic concept is power, in a continuous process, so that the basic approach uses ratio scales and cardinal utility and not ordinal scales. Other assumptions than cardinality enter the discussion only when the group wants to control power, and for example introduce democracy. A common notion is that economists reject cardinality and interpersonal comparison of utility. However, the concept of ‘one person, one vote’ actually imposes some interpersonal comparison of utilities. Also comparing orderings of preferences implies some comparison of utilities. The proper perspective is rather that cardinality is deficient since people can cheat about their preferences (at least in the current state of technology). The major argument for ordinality is that it limits the room for cheating. If people could not cheat, interpersonal comparison likely would be much more popular amongst economists. The point that ordinality reduces interpersonal comparison thus seems less relevant than the point that cardinal comparisons are unreliable since people can cheat.

For example, when a family goes on holiday and has the choice between Spain or Greece, then little Robby might exaggerate his preference for Greece and say that he might as well die when Spain is selected. When the aggregation of preferences would be cardinal, such a huge negative weight for one option would certainly block it. Imposing ordinality limits the impact of cheating however. In common textbooks on voting theory, cheating comes in relatively late, but it is more adequate to start right away with that notion. The crucial insight is: Arrow’s Theorem and the voting paradoxes are the price that we have to pay in order to limit that impact of ‘stategic’ voting behaviour.

Arrow’s orginal question whether there could not exist a generally good voting mechanism remains a valid question, though. As history has shown, mathematicians are proficient in identifying paradoxes and in deriving new impossibilities, and one will not quickly find a suggestion for a generally good system. But it appears that when we consider the issue of time, then a solution tends to suggest itself. To understand this solution, it is useful to first consider three main contenders, i.e. the ‘traditional’ solutions provided by Plurality, Borda and Condorcet. There are other methods, but their properties are such that they need no consideration here.

Three traditional methods

In Plurality, all voters have one vote, and the candidate with the highest number is selected. Note the problems with this method. The criterion of ‘highest number’ does not imply that the winner must also have more than 50% of the vote. If this is additionally imposed, then this may require more rounds of voting, and then there is the difficult issue whether candidates have to drop out, and if so, how.