March 29, 2008
Dear Economist: Is it rational to vote?
Dear Economist,
I’m an American. As you know, the primary elections are heating up here, and in a few months we’ll have the real thing. Eight years ago I caught flak from my wife for not voting; I tried pointing out the minuscule impact of a single vote (mine). She responded that if everyone thought as I did, no one would vote. However, I don’t make decisions for everyone, just myself. Is it rational for me to vote, considering only the effect of my vote on the outcome of the election, and leaving out (for once) my wife’s lowered opinion of me?
P.B.
Dear P.B.,
I accept that your vote has almost no chance of deciding the outcome. Even in the infamous Bush-Gore contest in Florida in 2000, the chance that a single Florida voter could have changed the outcome seemed minuscule at the time. With hindsight it was zero, since the official margin of victory was more than one vote.
For this reason, nobody votes hoping that his vote will change the outcome. We vote instead because we like to feel involved, out of a sense of duty, or – importantly – to avoid being criticised by our friends and loved ones. These motives are enough to get about half of us out to the polls, but not enough to persuade us to engage in pointless research into the details of each candidate’s policy platform. All of which explains why many people vote, but few do so in an informed fashion.
None of this changes the fact that democracy is useless without a decent number of voters. That is why your wife is right to put you under pressure. It should go without saying that ignoring her would be highly irrational.
Questions to economist@ft.com
The question of vote is one that shows how the utilitarian ethics do not work.
Posted by: claudio | March 29th, 2008 at 1:40 pm | Report this commentWe need to power up democracy!
The letter from an American asking an Englishman, Tim Harford, on whether exercising his vote really matters, March 29, is a perfect example of why democracies here and there need some major nips and tucks if they are going to have a chance to deliver on all the goodies we expect from them.
Among many others I much favour the following three amendments:
First. Give all the children a right to vote; to be exercised by their parents or elder siblings; before they start pressuring baby boomers for vote rights based on vested interests, like for instance the expected years each one will have to live with the consequences of the vote.
Second. Get rid of the secrecy of the vote and keep public records on how each citizen vote so that we can get some real accountability into the system. I mean some of my friends, if they voted as I think they did, they should be stripped of all electoral rights.
Third and last. Citizens should not be allowed to exercise their own right to vote but the vote of someone else; all assigned through a lottery. That system of voting a mandate should also make real wonders for the accountability needed.
Posted by: Per Kurowski | March 30th, 2008 at 12:43 am | Report this commentWasn’t this the subject of a post by The Undercover Economist fifteen days before? (”Rational voting” 14MRC08)
Posted by: HKLivingston, 26, investment banker | April 2nd, 2008 at 4:26 pm | Report this comment