« Marginal returns vs. average returns | Main | Heard in Riyadh, Teheran and Caracas »
Random voting
In an effort to improve voter turnout the Arizona Voter Reward Act (if approved) would give every voter a chance to win a prize of $1 million. Great. Why not hand out a bottle of vino with every vote or some crack? Where is Richard Titmuss when you need him? What sort of people won't vote if there is no lottery but will vote if they get a lottery ticket and why do we want these people to vote?
Frankly, too many people vote already. I know, that's heresy against the great religion of democracy - i.e. worship of the mob - but other people voting is an externality on me and in this case I will side with Pigou.
Thanks to Curtis Melvin for the pointer.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on July 20, 2006 at 07:07 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
This gives a new depth of meaning to Mencken's crack about a political
election being a sort of advance auction sale of stolen property.
Posted by: Bill Stepp at Jul 20, 2006 9:33:59 AM
When I was at college, they gave out a free beer mug for voting in the school elections.
But the college's admissions process prevented the bottom two thirds of the population from participating in that election.
Posted by: Half Sigma at Jul 20, 2006 9:38:47 AM
I note that the guy who's behind the resolution is a Democrat, and I'm sure he knows EXACTLY what the effect will be: more Democratic voters.
Posted by: Half Sigma at Jul 20, 2006 9:41:14 AM
I too got a beer mugs in college for voting. The drinking age was 18 and the campus political parties used to give out free beer. I loved it. It was a great tradition. I still have 2 of 5 mugs.
I vote in every election. I have only missed one election (municipal in 1982) since getting the right to vote in 1970.
I am instilling good voting habits (vote early and often) in my daughter. She understands that every vote does count.
My dream is that someday, I am the only one voting on an issue and my vote really counts.
I am opposed to "rewarding" people for voting. The government you get is the reward for voting.
,dave
Posted by: Dave Barnes at Jul 20, 2006 9:49:44 AM
I agree that voting is an externality. In a stable democracy, like Arizona, it's probably negative. In a less established democracy, in danger of losing its "legitimacy" (read: revolution, military coup, ...) voting may carry a positive externality.
Bring on the money!
Posted by: pigou at Jul 20, 2006 9:52:14 AM
Siding with Pigou makes you a racist. Seriously, I dare you to enter any public area and mention that elections aren't self-financing and a small user fee could relieve the tax burden. The anti-racists will lynch you.
Question: Is it true that the decline in voter participation is one of the steadiest and most robust libertarian trends of recent decades?
Posted by: c at Jul 20, 2006 10:26:26 AM
"She understands that every vote does count."
Which is of course quite false.
Posted by: Noah Yetter at Jul 20, 2006 10:53:23 AM
Isn't voting normally an irrational economic decision? You should applaud Arizona's attempt to encourage more economically literate people to vote.
Posted by: jon at Jul 20, 2006 10:55:13 AM
Alex seems to have a low opinion of some of his fellow americans. Australia has had _compulsory_ voting since 1924 and they seem to be doing OK. Perhaps that has resulted in better informed voters over time. Australia also places a "none of the above" option on all ballots. I even found an website dedicated to NOTA. http://www.nota.org/. What a grand idea!
Posted by: David Culbertson at Jul 20, 2006 10:59:49 AM
I may be "unfair" to think of this as an attempt to turn out Democratic voters. Perhaps a better way to think of it may be "who would be motivated to vote simply by the consideration of the expected value of a lottery ticket?" The picture is not pretty.
Posted by: mike at Jul 20, 2006 11:09:43 AM
Here in Australia there is a formal incentive to vote but it works in the reverse - punishment not reward. It is compulsory for every citizen over the age of 18 at the time of an election to vote. Those who do not vote receive a fine.
When I was younger I was very much against this incentive of punishment and considered the choice of not voting to be as important as the right to vote. Nowadays I think it is not such a bad idea.
Posted by: Clinton McMurray at Jul 20, 2006 11:18:07 AM
Alex -- I have trouble understanding your pigou reference.
If you assume that a) voting is costly and b) voting, like consuming, is a
system designed to take individually imperfect information and to produce
an efficient allocation of resourses, then voting by others is good and not
bad and an incentive to tip the scales in favor of others is a positive
pigouvian subsidy. it's not like voting is rival -- someone voting doesn't
make it impossible for you to vote. Unless you think that your assessment
of who should be elected is unassailable (i.e. you are right about who the
"best" official is, regardless of the information imputs of others), then
your position is hard to get...
Posted by: CanoePigou at Jul 20, 2006 1:06:38 PM
"She understands that every vote does count."
In most places I've lived, one or the other party dominated everything so voting was a waste because the election was pre-determined.
Posted by: Half Sigma at Jul 20, 2006 1:22:09 PM
Half Sigma must not live in any of the below:
U.S.
Germany.
Italy.
Mexico.
And a long et cetera!
Posted by: na at Jul 20, 2006 2:07:33 PM
"The government you get is the reward for voting." Unfortunately, in Arizona, the government you get rewarded with for having voted may make you wish you'd never voted at all.
Posted by: LisaMarie at Jul 20, 2006 3:22:07 PM
mike says.... "who would be motivated to vote simply by the consideration of the expected value of a lottery ticket?" The picture is not pretty.
Depends on the value. If we're talking pennies a voter then forget about it. You up it to a few bucks and that might get me to vote. I stopped voting when I realized that none of the candidates represented me, but I could maybe take the time for a couple bucks.
Posted by: BillWallace at Jul 20, 2006 5:40:25 PM
Well, consulting history, the founders of America did find it somewhat necessary to provide incentives for their fellow Americans to join the revolution. While one may argue that the Sons of Liberty making a routine of meeting at taverns over beer to discuss politics may be a continuation of similar traditions in Europe, one cannot mistake the practice of having some free beer available to boost attendance for the Minutemen drills after the first few drills did not attract enough people. I don't know if the marginal benefits apply in the same way to voting though... any realized benefits from such a plan are, I think, likely to be long-range benefits.
Posted by: nuclearpoet at Jul 20, 2006 6:05:39 PM
na, on the NATIONAL level it may seem that the parties are equal, but on a LOCAL level usually one or the other dominates and candidates from the other party, esp if they are running against an incumbent, have zero change of winning an election.
Virginia was especially weird, only Democrats would win in Arlington, but only Republicans would win state-wide elections.
Posted by: Half Sigma at Jul 20, 2006 6:47:58 PM
Why use Virginia as an example when you're so close to '9% for Bush' Washington DC.
I think nuclearpoet has the idea, free beer at voting stations!
Posted by: BillWallace at Jul 20, 2006 7:17:21 PM
I was just discussing this yesterday with a Brazilian friend: obligatory suffrage (yes, you receive a fine if you have not voted, or registered with police in your home municipality) in Chile probably lowers the overall quality of the government, as this forcibly widened democracy adds a disproportionate number of uninformed voters to the electorate. He said it was much the same in Brazil. Also, this forced suffrage means that voting day is always chaotic, as nearly all the adults are going to understaffed polls.
Posted by: Sean at Jul 20, 2006 7:28:55 PM
Compulsory voting for a freer society. My that has a nice ring to it.
Posted by: Anonymous2 at Jul 20, 2006 7:38:41 PM
This reminds me of an idea I hatched one night in a fit of utopianism: Abolish income tax and allow each voter to decide his/her candidate by a gift of money, no limits. The candidates are then ranked according to the money they received and are awarded seats on that basis. Those who didn't make the cut, surrender their funds to the fiscus. I am not sure if the elected representatives should keep control of their own funds or likewise surrender it to the fiscus. This system, to work, should be implemented on every level from local through to the federal.
Posted by: Will at Jul 20, 2006 10:17:06 PM
I think that this is quite timely and apropos of the Onion:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50640
Posted by: Bill at Jul 21, 2006 12:53:32 AM
"What sort of people won't vote if there is no lottery but will vote if they get a lottery ticket?"
Me for one, and anyone else who understands the voter paradox too.
Posted by: dsquared at Jul 21, 2006 4:09:14 AM
"Perhaps a better way to think of it may be "who would be motivated to vote simply by the consideration of the expected value of a lottery ticket?""
Well, it might help put an end to this ban-online-gambling nonsense. :)
Posted by: Jacqueline at Jul 21, 2006 2:01:51 PM
