Rational Choice Theory

(source: www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1407756?sid=21105714627653&uid=4&uid=2 &

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory)
The rational choice approach to politics assumes the individual behavior is motivated by
his/her self-interest simply to put goal into fulfilment. As positive theory, this choice is
increasingly criticized for its failure to construct a model of political behavior which account the
complexities of human nature in various aspects of organized politics. These criticism suggest
that rational choice omits far too much from the complex scheme of political life to be reliable
and useful as either explanatory of predictive theory. As for the results, critics urge to reply for
information abrupt.
To be define, rational choice theory uses a specific and narrower definition of "rationality"
simply to mean that an individual acts as if balancing costs against benefits to arrive at action
that maximizes personal advantage. It is also known as rational action theory that a framework
for understanding and often formally modeling social and economic behavior. Rationality,
interpreted as "wanting more rather than less of a good", is widely used as an assumption of the
behavior of individuals in microeconomic models and analysis appears in almost all textbook
treatments of human decision-making. It is central to some of modern political science,
sociology, and philosophy. It attaches "wanting more" to instrumental rationality, which involves
seeking most cost-effective means to achieve a specific goal without reflecting on the worthiness
of that goal. Gary Becker was an early proponent of applying rational actor models more widely.
The basic idea of rational choice theory is that patterns of behavior in societies reflect the
choices made by individuals as they try to maximize their benefits and minimize their costs. In
other words, people make decisions about how they should act by comparing the costs and
benefits of different courses of action. As a result, patterns of behavior will develop within the
society that result from those choices.
The idea of rational choice, where people compare the costs and benefits of certain
actions, is easy to see in economic theory. Since people want to get the most useful products at
the lowest price, they will judge the benefits of a certain object (for example, how useful is it or
how attractive is it) compared to similar objects. Then they will compare prices (or costs). In
general, people will choose the object that provides the greatest reward at the lowest cost.
Rational decision making entails choosing a "rational" action given one's preferences, the actions
one could take, and expectations about the outcomes of those actions.

Social Choice Theory

(source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-choice/)
Social choice theory is the study of collective decision processes and procedures. It is not a
single theory, but a cluster of models and results concerning the aggregation of individual inputs
(e.g., votes, preferences, judgments, welfare) into collective outputs (e.g., collective decisions,
preferences, judgments, welfare). Central questions are: How can a group of individuals choose a
winning outcome (e.g., policy, electoral candidate) from a given set of options? What are the
properties of different voting systems? When is a voting system democratic? How can a
collective (e.g., electorate, legislature, collegial court, expert panel, or committee) arrive at
coherent collective preferences or judgments on some issues, on the basis of its members'
individual preferences or judgments? How can we rank different social alternatives in an order of
social welfare? Social choice theorists study these questions not just by looking at examples, but
by developing general models and proving theorems.

Pioneered in the 18th century by Nicolas de Condorcet and Jean-Charles de Borda and in
the 19th century by Charles Dodgson (also known as Lewis Carroll), social choice theory took off
in the 20th century with the works of Kenneth Arrow, Amartya Sen, and Duncan Black. Its
influence extends across economics, political science, philosophy, mathematics, and recently
computer science and biology. Apart from contributing to our understanding of collective decision
procedures, social choice theory has applications in the areas of institutional design, welfare
economics, and social epistemology

Factors affecting a voters choice

(source: http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/factors-that-influence-voters-duringpresidential-elections.html)
The study of voter behavior is an examination of why people voted the way they did. Many
people closely follow political issues, but studies show that most do not. Most Americans
therefore make their political decisions, and voting decisions, based on factors other than the
issues
These factors include:
The voter's background and identification with the candidates
The voter's party identification
The voter's view of the incumbent's previous performance
For many voters, their impressions regarding particular candidates and political parties are
deep-rooted. Most voters already know how they will vote, even in the early stages of a
campaign. It is rare for campaigns to change the minds of voters, though sometimes a campaign
can successfully sway enough voters to influence the predicted outcome of an election. Various
polls showed that only around 10% of registered voters claimed to be undecided in the two
months prior to Election Day. Of those 10%, approximately 40% claimed to be leaning toward a
particular candidate. Also note that, of those 10%, only 61% were classified as likely to vote at
all.
Background
A voter's background has the largest influence on that voter's decision. Voter background
means the voter's social identity, such as economic class, ethnicity, gender, race and religious
preference. Often, a candidate will purposely gear campaign messages to particular voters, using
a theme that conveys sameness. This sameness can be based on the general background,
appearance or even the personality of the candidate. However, sometimes voters identify with a
candidate even without that candidate purposely catering to commonality. Either way, voters
tend to vote for the candidate that seems most like them.
Party Identification
Now let's take a look at the influence of a voter's party. A voter's party identification
directly influences that voter's decision. By party identification, we mean not just a voter's party
affiliation but also a voter's psychological attachment to a particular political party. Notably, close
to 90% of voters affiliated with a political party vote for that party's candidate in presidential
elections.
Incumbent's Performance
Next, let's look at how incumbent status can influence a voter's decision. A voter's view of
an incumbent's previous performance greatly influences that voter's decision. Most presidential
elections feature an incumbent candidate. Incumbent refers to the candidate who currently holds

that particular political office. For example, Obama was elected president in 2008, he was an
incumbent, seeking re-election, in 2012. Because a president is limited to serving no more than
two terms, the 2016 presidential election will not feature an incumbent. Unseating an incumbent
president is difficult. For an incumbent to lose an election, some of the voters who voted for the
incumbent in the previous election must switch allegiance.
Many voters view an incumbent's performance based on the state of the national
economy. When the economy is doing well, an incumbent has a good chance at re-election. The
incumbent typically enjoys support from those affiliated with his or her party and will also gain
the support of many Independents. However, when the economy is doing poorly, an incumbent
might still enjoy support of those who identify with his or her party but won't likely gain the
support of Independents.

Some least qualities for a leader according to voters

choice
(source: http://www.ronedmondson.com/2013/09/5-worst-leadership-traits-ive-observed.html)
Poor character Nothing can overcome a flawed character. Dishonesty in a leader, for
example, will always overshadow even the most worthy vision. You cant hide a corrupt heart.
Immorality always shines brighter than competence or ability. And it can be argued whether it
should be called success, but Ive seen some bad characters leading what appears to be very
successful organizations.
Avoidance The leader who ignores problems invites trouble to the church or organization.
Problems never go away on their own. They fester and eventually explode. It may take a long
time for them to be exposed but they will eventually catch up with the leader. Yet I have seen
some leaders survive a long time while avoiding the real problems.
Indecisiveness Every decision a leader makes is subject to opinion and there are always at
least two. Most of the time many more. But, leaders are called to make decisions when no one
else can or will. Indecisiveness stalls progress and frustrates people. Yet I have talked with
countless staff members of very large church who say their senior pastor cant or wont make
decisions.
Control Inflexibility on the part of a leader limits the church or organization to the level of
performance solely of the leader. Thats always bad. Even if the person is a genius, theres a lid
placed upon the organization or churchs future. People feel squashed of their potential and
under-appreciated, producing half-heartedness and poor morale. Who needs that? But, there are
still growing organizations with controlling leaders (I didnt say healthygrowing).
Pride Perhaps the worst trait Ive personally observed is the arrogance of a leader. It turns
people away in disgust when they hear a leader brag on all his or her accomplishments. The
braggart feels good personally, but is never as popular as he or she perceives. Ive found if a
leader is really good at what they do, they wont have to tell others about it. And, yet, know any
arrogant leaders who apparently lead successful organizationseven churches?

Philippines Most likely candidate for 2016 elections

(source: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/focus/10/26/13/people-watch-out-2016-elections)
At least nine elected officials and one Cabinet secretary have what it takes to become the
next Chief Executive who will succeed President Benigno Aquino, according to veteran political
analyst Antonio Gatmaitan.
In a recent forum organized by the Center for Philippine Futuristics Studies and
Management Inc., Gatmaitan named the possible contenders for the country's top post,
regardless of whether they have expressed intentions to run in the 2016 presidential elections.
They are:
- Vice President Jejomar Binay
- Interior and Local Government Secretary Manuel "Mar" Roxas II
- Senate President Franklin Drilon
- Senator Ramon "Bong" Revilla Jr.
- Senator Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr.
- Senator Loren Legarda
- Senator Francis "Chiz" Escudero
- Senator Grace Poe
- House Speaker Feliciano "Sonny" Belmonte
- Manila Mayor Joseph "Erap" Estrada