Question

"In class we considered a simple example where a majority of voters rationally oppose liberalization ex ante (that is, before implementation), even though liberalization would benefit a majority of voters if implemented. Could the opposite also happen – that is, a majority of voters favoring liberalization ex ante even though it would hurt a majority of voters if implemented? If that is not possible, explain why. If that is possible, illustrate it with a numerical example."

Answer 1

It is definitely possible that the opposite of this question occurs. It is possible that a majority of voters might support liberalization even though it would hurt a lot of voters if implemented. This is because people do not always have their best interest at heart. Sometimes, this is because of poor information (people might not realize that something benefits them/affects them) while some other times it is because other factors do not let people see the truth (such as intense ideological or religious feeling).

Answer 2

Answer:

Yes and No.

Explanation:

Yes, the opposite could happen where the majority of the voters favour Liberalisation ex ante even though it will hurt a majority of voters if implemented if the voters were not properly and honestly informed about the hidden implications of the concept, policies, projects and programmes. Sometimes, lobbyist could play a fast and hard one on the unsuspecting ignorant majority voters and pool a wool in their eyes to ensure that the libralisation concept was voted into place to serve the interest of the selected few who are surreptitiously behind that agenda.

In other hand, the opposite is not allowed to happen were the majority voters are well in formed about the other side of the concept and unanimously voted against it. The case in  focus is the Plebiscite conducted in the Northern Ireland; to continue to be among the United Kingdom or to be an independent nation. Though, the noise of the cessation was loudest by the elitist politicians who wanted the part as an entity to continue in the unchecked subterfuge of politicking without interventions. Unfortunately, for the politicians, the plebiscite went the unexpected way as the voters disappointed them against wide expectations. They voted to continue to be part of the United Kingdom, which went contrary to the wrongly perceived public and media orchestrated opinions.