Some physicists are looking to do for elections what they have done for economics - try and prove that people can behave rationally. Here is hoping it goes better this time.
Unfortunately, the biggest believers in the idea that humans might, on occasion, obey rules that yield predictable collective patterns, have been non-scientists, like political philosopher John Stuart Mill and social scientists Auguste Comte and Adolphe Quetelet.
Individuals may choose freely, but, the hypothesis goes, when a lot of individuals interact, their choices are influenced by the presence of the others, and regular collective behaviors may emerge. In the past two decades, this idea of humans as “social atoms” has inspired a flourishing field of investigation, made possible by the availability of large data sets on social phenomena and powerful computers to process them.
It always works well in hindsight. In stock markets and elections, simulations are able to predict the past. It is the future where it falls apart.
Statistical physics, developed to deal with collections of many particles, provides a conceptual framework for understanding such systems, but the complexity of individuals and the intricacy of our interactions rule out the possibility of formulating principles and laws as rigorous as those applying to inanimate matter. Nevertheless, regular patterns in collective social phenomena abound, and they call for explanations, ideally expressible via simple models.
Just don't start risking your 401K on it.
Physics peeks into the ballot box by Santo Fortunato and Claudio Castellano, Physics Today.
