Okay, I respect all that. Sure, voters use “information” (often bad).
But your opening line: “The fires are revealing how good elected officials are at their jobs.”
That’s not true if by “how good” we mean any objective evaluation of policymaking or public administration. Fires haven’t done that.
But your opening line: “The fires are revealing how good elected officials are at their jobs.”
That’s not true if by “how good” we mean any objective evaluation of policymaking or public administration. Fires haven’t done that.
Comments
For instance, I don't think it is for you or me to tell voters that they should or shouldn't care whether the mayor broke a campaign promise. That's up to them.
That is, even if on average information is average, it has an effect on average.
The result doesn't depend on most info being bad.
Campaign promise to reduce foreign travel has got to be one of the least important aspects of the disaster. Interesting WaPost, NYT and commentators outside SoCal are making issue of that instead of….
Climate change.
Just not in your role as a social scientist.
Anyway, I think we agree on the conceptual matter.
I hope you and yours are safe.
I was referring to my earlier point about voters caring about campaign promises.
I can imagine reasonable voters who think that vote-relevant, even if they agree it has nothing to do with fire response. (Can also imagine reasonable voters who think it an unimportant triviality.)
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-10/how-much-did-the-l-a-fire-department-really-cut-its-budget