How Politicians Really Decide: Why Compromise Matters More Than Majority Rule
17 June 2026
Economic theory often assumes that political decisions reflect the will of the majority or aim to maximize overall utility. But is this really the case?
A new study by Philipp Dörrenberg, Professor of Business Administration and Taxation, and his co-authors suggests that political reality in German parliaments looks quite different. According to the study, politicians systematically place greater weight on protecting minorities and disadvantaged groups than on simply following the will of the majority.
Measuring political morality in practice
The researchers set out an experiment to examine which moral standards political decision-makers actually apply.
To do so, the research team developed an experimental design that made it possible to analyze political decision-making independently of electoral strategy and party pressures. The experiment was set up as an anonymized behavioral study and involved 423 members of the German Bundestag (the federal parliament of Germany) and the state parliaments, as well as more than 1,000 citizens.
Because the study was conducted anonymously, strategic motives and concerns about public perception were largely eliminated for the participating members of parliament. At the same time, the experiment was not merely hypothetical. The decisions had real financial consequences in the form of donations to political foundations, including the Hans Böckler Foundation or the Ludwig Erhard Foundation. This setting allowed the researchers, for the first time, to measure the ethical criteria politicians apply when they are able to decide freely from political calculation.
Why avoiding the worst outcome matters more than helping the majority
The findings show that politicians often follow a “safety-first” logic: Avoiding the worst outcome for individuals tends to carry more weight than achieving the best possible outcome for the majority.
In practice, this means politicians are often willing to forgo maximizing outcomes for the majority in order to protect fringe groups and minorities from disadvantage. In other words, the dominant approach is “social security through compromise.”
Politicians often follow a “safety-first” logic: Avoiding the worst outcome for individuals tends to carry more weight than achieving the best possible outcome for the majority.
The study also revealed notable differences between political parties. Representatives of centrist parties (CDU/CSU, SPD, Greens, FDP) show the strongest willingness to compromise. Their decisions follow a “maximin” principle, in which even the worst possible outcome for those affected is made as favorable as possible.
Parties on the political fringes place somewhat greater emphasis on the pure will of the majority, also referred to as the plurality principle. In these cases, the protection of those on the losing side carries less weight in decision-making. Even so, their positions remain well above the purely utilitarian standard of economics, which often gives less consideration to those who are worse off.
How far are politicians willing to intervene in citizens’ choices?
Another focus of the experiment was to examine how strongly politicians intervene in citizens’ freedom in order to enforce what they consider to be in their “best interest.”
Economic models typically assume that such interventions are justified only when people are likely to make irrational decisions because of short-term temptations (immediacy). However, the study points to a different political reality. Politicians intervene extensively to enforce what they consider “rational” decisions.
Most politicians remove “irrational” decision options from citizens’ choice sets, even in situations where no short-term temptation is involved.
The surprising gap between perception and reality
Perhaps the most striking finding is the gap between how citizens perceive politicians and how politicians actually make decisions.
The study shows something that may sound surprising to many: politicians and citizens share almost identical moral principles. Yet many people continue to view their representatives as a detached political elite, a perception that stems largely from a misreading of the motives behind political decisions.
Politicians and citizens share almost identical moral principles.
Citizens often underestimate how willing their political representatives are to compromise. They accuse politicians of paternalism that they themselves, if placed in the same position, would often exercise even more strictly. Many assume politicians rely primarily on strict majorities, but in reality, compromise plays a much larger role than the public often assumes.
The findings indicate that the moral principles and the resulting welfare criteria of citizens and their representatives are remarkably similar. The deep moral divide between voters and the “elite”, often assumed in public debate, does not in fact exist.
What does it take to build political support?
The study shows: anyone seeking political support for a project should not only emphasize benefits for the majority, but also offer solutions that prevent a worst-case scenario.
More broadly, the value consensus identified between the political elite and the public may serve as a stabilizing anchor for German democracy. The real challenge, the study suggests, lies not in a clash of values, but in how political decisions are communicated and perceived.