Low Information Rationality and the Ideal Citizen in Democracy
This paper examines why populistic democracy is difficult to sustain in the United States by drawing on two key theories: Samuel Popkin's concept of low information rationality and Bernard Berelson's four standards of ideal citizenship. Popkin argues that voters rely on media cues, personal interactions, and cognitive shortcuts rather than objective facts when evaluating candidates. Berelson identifies knowledge, discussion, rationality, and principle as the benchmarks an ideal citizen must meet. Using Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign as a recurring example, the paper demonstrates how emotional reasoning, stereotyping, and social allegiance consistently replace informed deliberation among American voters, rendering true populistic democracy an unrealistic ideal.
- Introduction: Democracy and the Ideal Citizen: Introduces Popkin and Berelson's frameworks on democratic idealism
- Popkin's Low Information Rationality: Voters rely on media and community cues, not facts
- Candidate Narratives and Information Shortcuts: Stereotypes and Gresham's Law shape candidate evaluation
- Berelson's Four Standards of Ideal Citizenship: Knowledge, rationality, discussion, and principle examined
- Principle, Social Allegiance, and Voter Behavior: Social bonds and blind loyalty override independent judgment
- Conclusion: The Gap Between Ideal and Reality: Populistic democracy is unworkable without truly ideal citizens
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It weaves two complementary theoretical frameworks — Popkin's low information rationality and Berelson's four democratic standards — into a single, coherent argument rather than treating them in isolation.
- The recurring use of the 2016 Trump campaign as a concrete case study grounds abstract political theory in a recognizable real-world event, making the argument accessible and persuasive.
- Direct quotations from primary sources are integrated smoothly and followed immediately by the student's own analytical commentary, demonstrating source engagement rather than mere citation.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper effectively uses comparative theoretical synthesis: it places Popkin and Berelson in dialogue with each other, showing where their conclusions converge (that American citizens deviate significantly from democratic ideals) while applying both frameworks to the same empirical example. This technique strengthens the thesis by showing it is supported from multiple scholarly angles simultaneously.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a theoretical framing paragraph that introduces both Popkin and Berelson before unpacking each theory in sequence. It then walks through Berelson's four standards one by one — knowledge, rationality, discussion, and principle — applying each to contemporary voter behavior. A brief synthesis section connects the two theories before a concise conclusion restates the central claim. The structure is essentially deductive: broad theoretical claim → detailed evidence → reaffirmed conclusion.
Introduction: Democracy and the Ideal Citizen
Democracy is meant to be a means for the everyday person to help govern the nation. However, Popkin's theory of low information rationality posits that the everyday person is unlike the ideal citizen in that they do not make decisions based on fact, but rather on personal interactions and information from the media. Populistic democracy allows for the governing of the nation through the ordinary person, not the privileged elite. However, similar to Popkin, Berelson believes most citizens are not able to maintain the specific standards needed to successfully govern a nation. This may be because most people lack the education and understanding of what it takes to run a country and select adequate political representatives.
The four standards briefly covered by Berelson — discussion, principle, rationality, and knowledge — are what an ideal citizen upholds. The reality of idealism, however, means no one truly represents the ideal citizen, especially in great numbers. Populistic democracy requires ideal conditions, making it an unfeasible form of democracy in the United States.
Popkin's Low Information Rationality
Voters, according to Popkin, rely on ways of collecting information that come from popular outlets such as the media and community. In a theory he calls "low information rationality," he explains the sources he drew upon to understand the process by which voters rationally choose a political candidate:
"My theory of how voters reason is a theory of low-information rationality which emphasizes the sources of information voters have about politics, as well as their beliefs about how government works. The theory is drawn from three main sources: the voting studies done at Columbia University in the 1940s; the theoretical contributions to the economics of information made by Anthony Downs; and certain ideas from modern cognitive psychology."1
Essentially, Popkin states that voters ask themselves: "Based on personal information, what is the likelihood that this political candidate will be the best choice?" Using Downs's theory concerning information shortcuts, voters rely on what they see from the media and from their community to build their opinions and personal knowledge of a candidate. If they see, for example, that Donald Trump is a successful businessman, they will use that information to weigh whether he would make a good president. Some Trump supporters believed his economic policy would help put the United States back on the road to prosperity, based on his ability to build a business empire.
They also believed that immigrants were at fault for the current state of the American economy and that Trump would solve this problem. "Many people voted for Trump because they wrongly believe that undocumented immigrants take their jobs and hurt our economy, that equality for people of color comes at a cost for whites, and that if we just give more money and freedom to big business and the rich, the poor and working class will somehow reap the benefits."2 This way of thinking is not based on facts or sourced from research; it is based on growing negative sentiments that spark a need to act.
Even though Trump had no sound economic policy grounded in logic or experience, his supporters rallied behind him and allowed him to win the election. Popkin's theory of low information rationality helps establish a reason why citizens assessed candidates in a way that produced such electoral outcomes, and supports the notion that American citizens are far from ideal. By collecting information as a by-product of daily interactions and clarifying their beliefs through what they see in the media, voters develop an affinity toward like-minded political leaders — creating the emotional reasoning that is continually present in voter behavior. When someone seems like the voter, that voter likes the person and will not question their motives or actions regardless of the outcome.
Candidate Narratives and Information Shortcuts
Such thinking leads into chapter four of Popkin's book: the creation of candidate narratives. Voters use broad narratives to inform their decisions rather than examining facts as an ideal citizen would. Popkin notes that voters frequently compare candidates to pre-existing stereotypes: "Representativeness is a heuristic, a 'rule of thumb' for judging the likelihood that a person will be a particular kind of person by how similar he or she is to the stereotype."3 President Donald Trump fits the stereotype of the successful businessman very well — blond, blue-eyed, with a prominent family, having come from money and grown it into a billion-dollar empire. This image sold him to many supporters as a candidate who would bring prosperity.
Popkin also discusses Gresham's Law of Information, which posits that a small amount of personal information can drive out prior impersonal (political) information. President Trump had no meaningful past political experience, yet because people knew him as a successful businessman, that personal information erased his lack of political credentials and made him a viable candidate in the eyes of many voters. This way of reasoning further distances the American citizen from the ideal citizen.
Idealism marks many theories. Like performing a controlled experiment, theories rely on ideal conditions to achieve a certain result. The problem with idealism is reality. Reality seldom offers ideal conditions and operates in ways that do not hold true to theoretical predictions. Practical application of theory can be vastly different from perceived outcomes, especially when factoring in unpredictable human behavior.
Conclusion: The Gap Between Ideal and Reality
American citizens are far from ideal citizens. Ideal citizens are needed to make a populistic democracy viable. Popkin demonstrates that most American citizens do not vote with purely logical reasoning. They vote based on the opinions of the media and of their community — that is, on personal interactions. If they were to adhere to the standards of the ideal citizen, they would choose political candidates based on objective information, open discussion, shared principles, and rational deliberation. Until those conditions are met, democracy in the United States will continue to operate well below its theoretical ideal.
Bibliography
Berelson, B. "Democratic Theory and Public Opinion." Public Opinion Quarterly 16, no. 3 (1952): 313. doi:10.1086/266397.
Kohn, Sally. "Let Donald Trump Supporters Have What They Voted For." TIME. Last modified November 9, 2016. http://time.com/4564226/let-donald-trump-supporters-get-what-they-voted-for/.
Popkin, Samuel L. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.