The first half of this book is excellent. Caplan does a great job breaking down the empirical data he uses to make his case that voters are dogmatically irrational when it comes to economic issues in a way that anyone could understand what he's talking about. Even more, he does this without sacrificing the intellectual rigor needed to make such a controversial argument as he provides all relevant statistical data he's relying on.

The last few chapters, though, were a bit of a let down. He seemed scattered as he jumped around defending economists and making the case against what he calls "democratic fundamentalists", but ultimately lacked any real substantive conclusion that I could put my teeth into. It felt as though Caplan was uneasy about suggesting a concrete solution (or at least, components of a solution), and this might be due to some of his more radical political views he didn't want to dive into. However, because of this, the end of his book seemed a little haphazard and I didn't feel the same satisfaction finishing the last few chapters as I did the first.

(To clarify, the last part of his book was interesting, it just didn't seem to flow logically from the first, nor did it offer a very strong conclusion.)

Having said that, I definitely recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the subject. The first half easily makes up for the weak ending, and you'll be pleased with your purchase when it's all said and done.

If there's one economics book you read this year please make it "The Myth of the Rational Voter" by Bryan Caplan. It's a great read, especially after the introductory tables/etc past page 80. It might end up being as revolutionary and influential in public choice theory as Robert Bork's Antitrust Paradox was for industrial organization theory.

Basically, economists have tried to maintain that rational consumers at the marketplace are also rational at the ballot box. To explain democracy's shortcomings, they've resorted to a "rational ignorance" model. This book, on the other hand, has a new "rational irrationalilty" model for voters' behavior. In short, there's a psychological benefit to irrationality. However, people are much more rational in the marketplace because the market imposes material costs for irrationality. In a democratic voting booth, on the other hand, given that one's impact on an election is infinitesimally small, irrationality has a private cost of zero. When weighed against positive psychological benefits to irrationality, the result is irrational voting and, consequently, socially costly irrational policy.

I'd especially recommend this to those who are very worried about market failure. As serious as market failure can be at times, the alleged cure of democratic government can be much worse than the disease. This book makes a strong case for a "private choice" alternative.

I really appreciated this purchase. The book is a methodological novelty and I am sure that many authors will cite it.

This book will give you a great deal of insight on why America functions the way it does. It is not a pretty picture. Basically, people vote for politicians who tell them what they want to hear, regardless of any logical inconistencies, because they don't trouble themselves to understand the issues in a non-emotional way. Given what we have heard from our presidential candidates lately, this goes a long way towards explaining why we elect who we do.

Caplan does not seem to appreciate the fact that this country was never supposed to be a democracy in the first place. The United States of America is a republic, not a democracy. In fact, until the early 1900s the word "democracy" was treated as a dirty word of sorts, and you never heard it in political speeches. Now politicians keen on vote buying stress the advantages (to their careers) of democracy.

This book says that a democracy is not a market, but a commons. No, a true democracy is a lynch mob. It's mob rule. If 100 people form a democracy and you're one of them and 70 of those people want to kill you and take your land, guess what, they can! They're the majority. Majority rules! This country is a republic and our freedoms are protected by rule of law, period.

The only political party that seems to appreciate this today is the Libertarian party. Democracy is not what it is important to preserve. Our liberty is. Our liberty is preserved by rule of law, a law that is above our elected officials, that they cannot change once "democratically" elected. Despotic tyrants are democratically elected all the time. Fascists are democratically elected. What is important are the restrictions on their power. Mencken said of democracy that "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." (As it is right now. This is also however about to happen in a week or so, regardless of which of the two morons wins.)