By: Douglas J Utberg

One of the criticisms frequently leveled against private industry by the political class is that it is a “winner takes all” environment.  The output of competitive markets is often blamed for the disparity between the “haves” and “have not’s” of society.  However, there is another critically important “winner takes all” effect that needs to be understood.

Consider the fact that in most political elections, the winning side typically garners somewhere between 50% and 55% of the votes.  Because of this, they subsequently claim to represent “the will of the people” due to their success in claiming a narrow majority of the votes cast.  However, almost every election leaves a significant portion of the population unrepresented by the winner . . . regardless of who that winner happens to be or which political party they represent.

The effect created by this phenomenon is an extreme “winner takes all” situation where the winning side of elections can use the power of government to force their will on the side who loses.  This is demonstrated very blatantly by authoritarian regimes where the winning party (frequently running in a rigged election) enforces its policy on the populace without opposition.

In contrast to this situation, consider the interplay of a free market where each consumer can make their own choices.  If a particular person desires to purchase a green vs. blue tie, there are a multitude of profit seeking business entities who are more than happy to satisfy your preference.  If you are concerned about animal cruelty, you have the choice to purchase your food from farms that go out of their way to treat their animals well.  The characteristic of free markets that many people find unappealing is the fact that many other people make choices that they do not personally agree with.  In these cases, they often seek to force their will on the populace through the political process.

On balance, do we really think that our interests are better served by a government that structurally ignores over 40% of the electorate?  Is it really better to use the power of government to enforce the will of a narrow majority onto the whole population?  Or is the populace better served by a free market where competition for revenues and profits creates choices for consumers?  The specter of inequality is frequently cited as the driving motive for government action, but pause to consider all of the other things can be done with the authority of government?  Thomas Jefferson was believed to have expressed the sentiment (later iterated by Gerald Ford) that a government big enough to give you all you want is also big enough to take away all you have.  It is most certainly true that we should be careful what we wish for, because it may not be quite what we were hoping for if we get it.