Final answer:
The Pepsi candidate wins due to vote splitting among Coca-Cola candidates, rational ignorance discourages voting as individuals feel their vote has little impact, and a small special interest group can win through intense advocacy and mobilization when the majority is less motivated or informed.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question refers to a scenario often encountered in collective decision-making situations such as elections.
In the given example of an election for Soft Drink Commissioner, with one candidate from the Pepsi party and four from the Coca-Cola party, the Pepsi candidate wins despite what seems to be an overwhelming preference for Coca-Cola.
This can occur due to a phenomenon known as vote splitting, where the majority's votes are divided among similar choices (the Coca-Cola candidates), diluting their individual support and letting the minority (the Pepsi candidate) win with a united voter base.
Rational ignorance is a concept whereby individuals decide that the cost of becoming informed about an issue or election does not outweigh the benefit they can get from the knowledge, as their single vote is unlikely to change the outcome. This line of reasoning can discourage voting, as the perceived lack of impact leads to apathy.
Lastly, a small special interest group can prevail in majority voting when the policies they advocate for intensely benefit their small group, and the costs are diffused among the majority.
The interest group is highly motivated to participate and advocate for their cause, while the majority may be less informed or less mobilized due to the diluted impact on them.