The myth of the rational investor has been thoroughly debunked over the last decade by, among other people, behavioral financiers and neuropsychologists. In this week's Economist, another myth comes under attack, the myth of the rational voter. Many political scientists believe that the wisdom of crowds phenomenon helps the best candidate get elected. Basically, if ignorant voters vote randomly, the candidate who wins a majority of well-informed voters will win, with the "ignorant votes" cancelling each other out. The Economist begs to differ, why? Because ignorant voters do not vote randomly. They, surprise surprise, fall prey to biases that make them systematically demand policies that make them worse off, therefore proving they are not rational.

Four biases have been identified:
1) People do not understand that the pursuit of private profits often brings about public benefits and as a consequence have an anti-market bias.
2) They underestimate the benefits of interactions with foreigners: they have an anti-foreign bias.
3) They equate prosperity with employment rather than production: a make-work bias.
4) They tend to think economic conditions are worse than they are: a pessimistic bias.

Doesn't that sound like the platform of about every politician you know?