I'm not sure an "Effective Altruist's Guide" any election is a worthwhile way to spend time and mental effort. I'm open to an argument that it could be, but given (a) the insignificance of any single vote in a mass representative democracy, and (b) the consequent irrationality of being informed about politics.
I'm not sure an "Effective Altruist's Guide" any election is a worthwhile way to spend time and mental effort. I'm open to an argument that it could be, but given (a) the insignificance of any single vote in a mass representative democracy, and (b) the consequent irrationality of being informed about politics.
Now (a) and (b) are arguments that start from a standpoint of rational self-interest. Neither are a knockout argument against the work of building an "Effective Altruist's Guide" to any particular election. Especially as the goal of doing so is to pursue non-self-interested, EA goals and reduce the irrationality of being well informed for potentially many other people.
But I do think the burden of proof is on the decision to undertake such a project. Some questions that could factor into such an analysis:
(1) how many people is such a guide likely to reach?
(2) how influential would the votes of those people be on the election outcome? Are they likely to live in large urban ridings where their votes could be tie-breakers?
(3) would votes for party X (or Y) translate in any meaningful way into EA goals, or would it be lost amongst the other competing, larger, better organized interest groups in the society?
(4) what is the 'follow through' rate of political party's election platforms, and of those what types of policies are most likely to be successfully implemented. "Successful" here being the bare minimum "legislation passed, given Royal assent, and proclaimed" not "and achieved measurable impact on variable X." And that's before even considering whether the impact was for general good or ill. One doesn't have to even accuse political parties of being duplicitous or playing bait and switch with voters: "events," as Harold Wilson observed, lead governments, rather than governments leading events.
I'm not sure an "Effective Altruist's Guide" any election is a worthwhile way to spend time and mental effort. I'm open to an argument that it could be, but given (a) the insignificance of any single vote in a mass representative democracy, and (b) the consequent irrationality of being informed about politics.
Now (a) and (b) are arguments that start from a standpoint of rational self-interest. Neither are a knockout argument against the work of building an "Effective Altruist's Guide" to any particular election. Especially as the goal of doing so is to pursue non-self-interested, EA goals and reduce the irrationality of being well informed for potentially many other people.
But I do think the burden of proof is on the decision to undertake such a project. Some questions that could factor into such an analysis:
(1) how many people is such a guide likely to reach?
(2) how influential would the votes of those people be on the election outcome? Are they likely to live in large urban ridings where their votes could be tie-breakers?
(3) would votes for party X (or Y) translate in any meaningful way into EA goals, or would it be lost amongst the other competing, larger, better organized interest groups in the society?
(4) what is the 'follow through' rate of political party's election platforms, and of those what types of policies are most likely to be successfully implemented. "Successful" here being the bare minimum "legislation passed, given Royal assent, and proclaimed" not "and achieved measurable impact on variable X." And that's before even considering whether the impact was for general good or ill. One doesn't have to even accuse political parties of being duplicitous or playing bait and switch with voters: "events," as Harold Wilson observed, lead governments, rather than governments leading events.