March 14, 2008
Rational voting
We economists talk about the voting paradox: why vote, when your vote is so immensely unlikely to make a difference? A loyal reader points me to the exception:
TAMARAC, Fla. (AP) - Every vote counts. But what happens when there are no votes at all? That’s the situation city officials in Tamarac are facing. No voters showed up Wednesday night to cast a ballot in an annexation referendum for an unincorporated Broward County community.
The full story (not much longer) here.
Tim, not sure if you have picked this up in the news. But the political tsunami that hit the elections in Malaysia recently strongly contributes to the argument that every vote does count.
Posted by: kw | March 14th, 2008 at 1:44 am | Report this comment> Why vote, when your vote is
> so immensely unlikely to make a difference?
This may have nothing to do with Economics, but someone answered that oft-asked question once:
Because in a democracy, we have two tasks:
1 to vote
2 to persuade others about the reason(s) why it is why it is wise for them to vote the same way we do.
The one person-one vote system, apart from ensuring fairness, is designed to compel us to do perform the second task as well, if we indeed want to ‘make a difference’.
Let H be one person’s vote. Let O be persuasion.
H for hydrogen has its uses, but limited. O for oxygen is much more useful. But have two of H (two votes) share one O (persuasion), and you get something which two separate H’s and one O on its own could not provide.
Cheesy? Yes. Makes sense? Some might think so.
Posted by: HKLivingston, 26, investment banker | March 14th, 2008 at 10:22 am | Report this comment> Why vote, when your vote is
> so immensely unlikely to make a difference?
This may have nothing to do with Economics, but someone answered that oft-asked question once:
Because in a democracy, we have two tasks:
1 to vote
2 to persuade others about the reason(s) why it is why it is wise for them to vote the same way we do.
The one person-one vote system, apart from ensuring fairness, is designed to compel us to do perform the second task as well, if we indeed want to ‘make a difference’.
Let H be one person’s vote. Let O be persuasion.
H for hydrogen has its uses, but limited. O for oxygen is much more useful. But have two of H (two votes) share one O (persuasion), and you get something which two separate H’s and one O on their own could not provide.
Cheesy? Yes. Makes sense? Some might think so.
Posted by: HKLivingston, 26, investment banker | March 14th, 2008 at 10:28 am | Report this commentIf the object is to make a difference in the world - isn’t there a ‘consumer paradox’ too?
Buying a consumer product may make one feel good (like voting) but it is highly unlikely that the actions of any individual consumer would have any appreciably influence on the actions/policies of a large producer.
Posted by: Dave | March 14th, 2008 at 12:50 pm | Report this comment