|
So the people wouldn't have voted for Little Johnny if they had known that they would then also vote for a GST at a subsequent election? This logic is just weird. First, we have no evidence that people voted "for" the GST at the subsequent election. In elections, people must choose between parties who run on the basis of a bundle of policies.^ All the success of the Liberals at the subsequent election means is that people preferred their bundle of policies to the bundle offered by Labor.* However, the fact that the Liberals won does not indicate which component(s) of their bundle of policies people actually wanted. Second, there is in any case nothing weird about the logic of my argument. People often constrain their own actions now because they do not want to be exposed to risks, including risks associated with weakness of their own will, further down the track. An example is people who self-exclude from gaming venues because they cannot trust themselves to stop gambling once they start. Moreover, in the case of elections, the outcome depends not only on the choice of the individual but also on the choices of others. In these circumstances, it may be rational for me to vote in a way which I believe will influence people's future votes (or the policy bundles they are offerred at that time). For instance, say that I know that I will never want a GST under any circumstances, while others, although preferring not to have a GST, would put up with it in some circumstances (such as when it is offerred as part of a bundle of otherwise good policies). If I know that party X will offer such a bundle of policies in the future if elected now, it is entirely rational that I should vote against party X now. Have you actually seen the footage of Little Johnny saying this? Few people have, and if you ask them about it they will say that he made it in some kind of policy speech.... I have not seen the footage. However, given the airing that his comment received at the time, there was plenty of opportunity for JH to correct the record then if he thought that he had been misquoted. He didn't. Why? It is fair to presume that it was electorally valuable for him to leave the impression that he would not countenance a GST in the future, because, I suggest, people would have been less inclined to vote for him if they thought that he would go down that route.
___
^ Its more complicated than this. People also vote on the personalities and values of politicians (which might be a guide to future policy decisions) and they also give a value to matters such as incumbency, length of time in power etc. * Actually, the Libs only got 49 per cent of the two-party-preferred vote in 1998, so a majority of people did not prefer the Liberal bundle to the Labor bundle.
| 
