Voters’ Preferences in a Quantum Framework

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

Politics is regarded as a vital area of social science and strongly relies on the assumptions of voters’ rationality and as such the stability of preferences (at least in decisions that are made simultaneously). The phenomenon of divided government that has dominated the US political arena for many election periods over the last 40 years is not consistent with the notion of stable preferences of voters. The authors claim that there is no well defined ranking of their preferences on their utility function of “political preferences.” Recently, this problem has been handled by using the novel approach based on the formalism of quantum mechanics. The theory of quantum decision-making is applicable to the modeling of irrational and biased behavior of voters as well as to the nonseparability of their preferences. Irrationality, biases, and nonseparability lead to a deeper uncertainty than classical probabilistic uncertainty. In particular, quantum probability describes well the violation of Bayesian rationality. The authors model this nonclassical uncertainty in voters’ preferences by using elements of the fundamental quantum information structures such as superposition and entanglement. The chapter is an introduction to the quantum modeling of the behavior of an electorate with unstable preferences (contextual preferences) and the authors use one of the most potent theories of adaptive dynamics, namely, the theory of open quantum systems. In this model a voter’s decision is created in the process of interaction with an information bath in which the mass media play the key role.

Keywords

Presidential Election Belief State Quantum Model Open Quantum System Congressional Election 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aerts, D., d’Hooghe, B., & Haven, E. (2010). Quantum experimental data in psychology and economics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 49(12), 2971–2990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aerts, D., Sozzo, S., & Tapia, J. (2014). Identifying quantum structures in the Ellsberg Paradox. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 53, 3666–3682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvarez, R. M., & Schousen, M. (1993). Policy moderation or conflicting expectations? Testing the intentional model of split-ticket voting. American Politics Quarterly, 21, 410–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arterton, F. (1984). Media politics. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  5. Asano, M., Ohya, M., Tanaka, Y., Basieva, I., & Khrennikov, A. (2011). Quantum-like model of brain’s functioning: Decision making from decoherence. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 281, 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bagarello, F. (2015). An operator view on alliances in politics. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 75(2), 564–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bagarello, F., & Haven, E. (2015). Towards a formalization of a two traders market with information exchange. Physica Scripta, 90 015203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brams, S. J., Kilgour, M., & Zwicker, W. S. (1997). The paradox of multiple elections. Social Choice and Welfare, 15, 211–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Busemeyer, J. R., & Bruza, P. D. (2012). Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Busemeyer, J. R., Pothos, E. M., Franco, R., & Trueblood, J. S. (2011). A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgement errors. Psychological Review, 118(2), 193–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Busemeyer, J. R., Wang, Z., Khrennikov, A., & Basieva, I. (2014). Applying quantum principles to psychology. Physica Scripta, 014007.Google Scholar
  12. Busemeyer, J. R., Wang, Z., & Townsend, T. J. (2006). Quantum dynamics of human decision-making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50, 220–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conte, E., Khrennikov, A. Y., Todarello, O., Federici, A., Mendolicchio, L., & Zbilut, J.P. (2009). Mental states follow quantum mechanics during perception and cognition of ambiguous figures. Open Systems and Information Dynamics, 16, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Danilov, V. I., & Lambert-Mogiliansky, A. (2010). Expected utility theory under non-classical uncertainty. Theory and Decision, 68, 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Barros, J. A., & Suppes, P. (2009). Quantum mechanics, interference and the brain. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 306–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dzhafarov, E. N., & Kujala, J. V. (2012). Quantum entanglement and the issue of selective influences in psychology. An overview. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7620, 184–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Enelow, J., & Melvin, J. H. (1984). The spatial theory of voting: An introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Finke, D., & Fleig, A. (2013). The Merits of adding complexity: non-separable preferences in spatial models of European Union politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 25(4), 546–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fiorina, M. P. (1992). Divided government. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  20. Franco, R. (2009). The conjunction fallacy and interference effects. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 415–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graber, D. (1989). Mass media and American politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  22. Haven, E., & Khrennikov, A. (2013). Quantum social science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haven, E., & Khrennikov, A. (2016). A brief introduction to quantum formalism. In E. Haven & A. Khrennikov (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of quantum models in social science: Applications and grand challenges. Palgrave: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Ingarden, R.S., Kossakowski, A., & Ohya, M. (1997). Information dynamics and open systems: Classical and quantum approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Khrennikov, A. (2016). Why quantum? In E. Haven & A. Khrennikov (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of quantum models in social science: Applications and grand challenges. Palgrave: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Khrennikov, A., Basieva, I., Dzhafarov, E. N., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2014). Quantum models for psychological measurements: An unsolved problem. PLoS ONE, 9(10), e110909. doi:10.1371/journal.pone. 0110909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Khrennikov, A., & Haven, E. (2009). Quantum mechanics and violations of the sure-thing principle: The use of probability interference and other concepts. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 378–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Khrennikova, P. (2014a). Order effect in a study on US voters’ preferences: Quantum framework representation of the observables. Physica Scripta, 014010.Google Scholar
  29. Khrennikova, P. (2014b). A quantum framework for ‘Sour Grapes’ in cognitive dissonance. In H. Atmanspacher, E. Haven, et al. (Eds) (Vol. 8369, pp. 270–280). Lecture notes in computer science.Google Scholar
  30. Khrennikova, P., & Haven, E. (2015). Instability of political preferences and the role of mass-media: A dynamical representation in quantum framework. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 374(2058), 20150106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Khrennikova, P., Haven, E., & Khrennikov, A. (2014). An application of the theory of open quantum systems to model the dynamics of party governance in the US political system. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 53(4), 1346–1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kolmogorov, A. (1950). Foundations of probability. New York: Chelsea Publishing Company (1993).Google Scholar
  33. Lacy, D. (2001). A Theory of nonseparable preferences in survey responses. American Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lacy, D., & Niou, E. (1998). Elections in Double-Member districts with nonseparable voter preferences. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 10, 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lacy, D., & Niou, E. (2000). A problem with referendums. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 12(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ohya, M., & Tanaka, Y. (2016). Adaptive dynamics and an optical illusion. In E. Haven & A. Khrennikov (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of quantum models in social science: Applications and grand challenges. Palgrave: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  37. Ohya, M., & Volovich, I. (2011). Mathematical foundations of quantum information and computation and its applications to nano-and bio-systems. Heidelberg, Berlin, New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Plotnitsky, A. (2009). Epistemology and probability: Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger and the nature of quantum-theoretical thinking. Heidelberg, Berlin, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. (2009). A quantum probability explanation for violations of “rational” decision theory. Proceedings of the Royal society B, 276(1165), 2171–2178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith, C. E., Brown, R. D., Bruce, J. M., & Overby, M. (1999). Party balancing and voting for Congress in the 1996 National Elections. American Journal of Political Science, 43(3), 737–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Trueblood, J. S., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2011). A quantum probability model for order effects on inference. Cognitive Science, 35(8), 1518:1552.Google Scholar
  42. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunctive fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1953). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Wang, Z., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2013). A quantum question order model supported by empirical tests of an a priori and precise prediction. Topics in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 689–710.Google Scholar
  45. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zorn C., & Smith, C. (2011). Pseudo-classical nonseparability and mass politics in Two-Party systems. In D. Song, et al. (eds.) (Vol. 7052, pp. 83–94). Lecture notes in computer science.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business and IQSCSUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK
  2. 2.School of Business and IQSCSUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations