Recently I read The Dictator’s Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alistair Smith. This book not only left me with a new outlook on politics but it also left me with some taunting questions. Do politicians really pick power over policies they believe in? Will the continuing divide of political parties and inequality hurt our nation in the long run?
In this book Bueno de Mesquita and Smith share their thoughts on selectorate theory, with the central thesis that leaders, whether an autocrat, president, or even a CEO, do not rule alone. These leaders or politicians are voted in and kept in power by their winning coalition, and depending on the size that may be 61 million (such as in the United States for those who voted for Pres. Trump) or 200 people (such as the Donju in North Korea). This winning coalition helps to keep the ruler in power and pleasing the winning coalition will be the leader’s focus. The size of the winning coalition will ultimately decide if they will use private or public goods to stay in power. And, through these incentives and benefits to the winning coalition a ruler can solidify their power.
So, if we change our perception on politics and understand that “leaders cannot lead unilaterally,” requiring their winning coalition to stay in power, this should ultimately mean that those who want to stay in power must pick policies that please the winning coalition. Essentially picking power over policies. If we all viewed our democracy this way, it could be a powerful tool for voters. There are many factors on why voters select certain candidates, but why not focus on the candidate’s past voting records and proposals, over what they are promising by taking candidates “at face value on their motives”.
Furthermore, in the 2016 election 77% of Americans were eligible to vote, or the as the theory would call them the nominal selectorate (interchangeables), and only 42% voted or the real selectorate (influentials), and the winning coalition (essentials) was only 19% or 61 million as mentioned earlier. As you may remember, President Trump won by having 306 electorate votes, and not the majority vote, meaning the winning coalition is actually smaller than the majority of those who voted.
In the book it says “we have learned that just about all of political life revolves around the size of the selectorate, the influentials, and the winning coalition. Expand them all, and not the interchangeables no more quickly than the coalition, and everything changes for the better for the vast majority of people.” However, we are in a time where the partisan gap continues to grow (according to Pew Research Center). So as the partisan gap grows wider, the winning coalition essentially would continue to grow smaller. Party values become more extreme and bipartisan values become rarer, forcing people further to either side or to the middle.
Yet, I find myself wondering, as the inequality in America grows, will this force the majority of people to come together to form a winning coalition? There are many factors and questions to debate regarding this topic as our democracy does not necessarily implement wealth-equalizing polices. Nevertheless, according to Bueno de Mesquita and Smith “change the coalition size and you can change the world.”