RALEIGH – Elections are like standardized, multiple-choice tests. They can be nerve-racking. There’s often a lot riding on the results. And in many jurisdictions the process is similar, except for the choice of writing utensil (a No. 2 pencil is probably not the best choice for casting secure votes, though it certainly might have had the salutary economic benefit of boosting rubber-eraser sales in some notoriously corrupt North Carolina counties).
Perhaps the most revealing resemblance is that both involve forcing a choice. Typically, participants don’t get a chance to explain their full preferences, or to present an alternative to the official options. You can glean a lot of important and useful information this way, but you also miss a lot. At least in education, there are other kinds of assessments to supplement such test scores: essay questions, GPAs, etc. In politics, all that really seems to matter is the score (which is lamentable).
I’m not arguing that representative government could operate any other way. But there is a strong argument for interpreting elections cautiously, with an understanding of the roles played by limited information, interest-group dynamics, and government structure in determining outcomes.
Consider the spate of local-tax referenda in North Carolina this year. As previously discussed, 27 counties are holding elections to decide the fate of proposed transfer-tax hikes (in 11 counties), sales-tax hikes (in 11 counties), or both (in five, though if voters say yes twice taxpayers can still be hit only once).
The tax-hike votes are, of course, a series of yes-or-no questions. Voters with mixed feelings or other preferences don’t get to write in a different answer. They will also bring differing assumptions to the polling place, a fact of great importance when interpreting the results. For example, consider the case of a fiscal conservative who believes her locality already has sufficient tax revenue to fund necessary government functions. (There is a lot of supporting evidence for her belief, according to a series of regional briefs published this week by the John Locke Foundation. They show that in the North Carolina counties holding the local-tax votes this year, the numbers show no need for a new taxing source. Many jurisdictions have bulging cash reserves and aren’t spending their current revenue wisely.)
Suppose that this fiscal conservative, while doubtful of the need for higher taxes, is convinced that her county commission is going to raise taxes, anyway. In her mind, she’s faced only with a choice between different taxes. She might well opt for a transfer tax, because she isn’t planning to sell her home in the next few years, over an expected property tax.
On the other hand, consider the case of a “progressive” who favors significant higher local spending. Because he understands that transfer taxes and especially sales taxes cost high-income households a smaller share of their income than do property taxes, he might well decide to vote “no” on his county referendum, hoping that commissioners will then be forced to raise property taxes instead, which he considers a fairer levy. Furthermore, there are many voters whose preference on transfer- and sales-tax referendum will be determined by what they expect the proceeds to be used for – even though county commissioners won’t be bound by such expectations and, as my colleague Mitch Kokai explains, tax hikes never pay for the highest-priority government spending.
Consequently, it would be a mistake to interpret all votes in favor of transfer and sales taxes as an endorsement of bigger government, and all votes against these taxes as votes against bigger government.
Still, in general, spending lobbies are pushing the tax referenda heavily. They understand that property taxes are the most unpopular form of state or local taxation precisely because those who own homes and businesses get a tax bill every year and thus have a good sense of how much government costs them. (Renters pay property taxes, too, albeit implicitly in rents and when they shop or recreate, so they aren’t as aggravated by receiving an annual tally.) Most people who think government is too small tend not to worry as much about the hows of raising taxes as they do the whethers (as is evident by recent left-wing support for hikes in tobacco and alcohol taxes, which are by far the most regressive taxes in the portfolio).
One other way that people respond to the inherent constraints of ballot questions is, of course, not to cast a vote at all. While many citizens may intend to communicate a sort of “none of the above” sentiment, you can be sure that advocates of the local taxes will interpret inaction as an endorsement of the status quo.
To continue the test-taking analogy, if taxpayers leave their local-tax ballot question blank, that will still count as getting it wrong.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.