« New models of voting | Main | I voted »
My simple thought on voting
Most of what you do is for expressive value anyway, so you shouldn't feel guilty about voting, if indeed you vote. The people who think they are being instrumentally rational by not voting are probably deceiving themselves more. They are actually engaged in an even less transparent form of expressive behavior (protest against the voting system) and yet cloaking that behavior under the guise of instrumental rationality. The best arguments against voting are simply if you either don't like voting or if you don't know which candidate is better. High-status people hardly ever offer the latter justification, even though the split of opinions among high-status people suggests that not all high-status people can in fact know which candidate is better.
In other words, both voting and not voting are motivated by the thought that you are better than other people. I am glad that we have an entire day devoted to this very important concept.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 4, 2008 at 08:50 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
From my own end, I left the presidential spot blank for the following reason.
I very much dislike Obama and McCain. Each one will probably do many things I don't like if elected president.
By not voting (or voting third party), not only are you protesting the bad choices the two parties have given you, but you are additionally exculpated from the undesirable things the next president does. "Don't blame me, I voted for McCain (assuming Obama wins)" is an absurd statement because it presumes McCain would not do something equally bad if not worse than Obama in which case the converse would be true. By not supporting either one, however, you are not directly responsible for what the next president does.
I think George Carlin expressed it best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efKguI0NFek
Posted by: Scott at Nov 4, 2008 9:07:46 AM
I got a better deal on my expressive value.
Posted by: Rolo Tomasi at Nov 4, 2008 9:09:05 AM
"In other words, both voting and not voting are motivated by the thought that you
are better than other people. I am glad that we have an entire day devoted to this very important
concept."
So if I vote today for one of the two presidential candidates which I only get to do
every 4 years it is because I think I am better than other people? And if I don't
vote today, I still think I am better than other people.
My analysis of your premis is that YOU think that YOU are better than ALL others.
What do you think?
Posted by: Bill at Nov 4, 2008 9:13:22 AM
Either I have trouble recognizing irony, or you have trouble recognizing an reductio ad absurdum.
Posted by: beamish at Nov 4, 2008 9:22:56 AM
"In other words, both voting and not voting are motivated by the thought that you are better than other people."
Well, I happen to think that our current government is a gathering of looters, and that my vote would represent a desire to acquire a share of the loot. So to me, not voting makes me a better person than I would be if I voted. But I'm perfectly willing to accept that most of those who vote don't feel about government the same way that I do. Their values lead them to believe that they are participating in a legitimate process. So, not better, just different.
Posted by: Randy at Nov 4, 2008 9:25:06 AM
I am not voting because I am lazy. I like Obama quite a bit and sort of regret not voting for him because of this. But really, I'm too lazy to take advantage of mail in rebates. Compared to getting 80 dollars in the mail I would almost certainly get less utility out of voting. I don't take other people voting as silly or naive. I only offer the rationality of not voting explanation when other people act indignant about me not voting. I would rather not publicly cite my laziness, or have them presume ignorance which is insulting and not really accurate. Since I am lying about my motivation I don't know why I don't just lie about actually having voted. It seems more serious to lie about matters of fact when why I do what I do is sort of inscrutable. I am certain that I would get more utility from a feeling of belonging to a group of Obama voters than I would from belonging to a group of people who know about the irrationality of voters.
Posted by: Michael Foody at Nov 4, 2008 9:33:36 AM
I am glad that we have an entire day devoted to this very important concept.
Tyler, you are such a card.
By not voting (or voting third party), not only are you protesting the bad choices the two parties have given you, but you are additionally exculpated from the undesirable things the next president does.
No. What we need is to have an additional choice: "__ I'm not voting for any of the above because I want this vote counted as a protest."
My analysis of your premis is that YOU think that YOU are better than ALL others. What do you think?
You are an idiot. And you probably think you are better than other people.
Posted by: at Nov 4, 2008 9:34:27 AM
It's only expressive if you tell people you are not voting. If you keep it to yourself, expressive value has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: anon at Nov 4, 2008 9:35:02 AM
The only reason to vote may be to express support for democracy if paperless voting machines mean that voting totals can be reversed by 20 lines of source code. Any sensible system would contain a mechanism for conducting audits. Say a random sample of .001 voting machines. But this would require a paper record of the votes cast. And we don't have that.
Of course a clever programmer could get the paper record to also flip, but that would require a much more clever programmer. We don't even take precautions against weak fraud.
So I am only going to vote to feel good, knowing that some clever computer programmer has already determined who I really am voting for.
Perhaps I can rest in comfort that in non-Presidential races there is less reason to flip votes, so maybe those votes do count.
Posted by: Barry Ickes at Nov 4, 2008 9:48:20 AM
I find many more people voting worrying. Not because people should not involve themselves in selecting governments. Rather, it's the reason people are voting. We are becoming like Europe, where more people vote because they look to the government to solve their problems. Many of these first-time voters did not vote because they perceived the government played a small role in their life.
Election should become less meaningful, not more.
Posted by: mw at Nov 4, 2008 9:50:14 AM
Not sure if most of you realize it, but your harsh retorts to Tyler are a perfect display of your "I'm better than you" attitude.
Posted by: JH at Nov 4, 2008 9:52:55 AM
Why is everyone quibbling with Tyler on this? I think he's right on. I am better than other people, at least better than enough of them that it's worth voting and moving the average in the right direction. Someone's got to help cancel out all you idiots out there.
Posted by: Christopher M at Nov 4, 2008 10:01:59 AM
"not all high-status people can in fact know which candidate is better".
Better at what? Better at expanding abortion rights or at protecting the unborn? Better at gun control or at Second Amendment rights?
Now, I wouldn't be all that shocked if some policy questions had an optimal solution. I can imagine someone proving that we'd all be better off if pot was legal but meth was not, or if we built up our navy and reduced our army, or if we allowed abortion up to 23 weeks but not after 24wks. I would be much interested in seeing such results.
In the meantime, I AM better than everyone else, at knowing what my own preferences are.
Not that any of the candidates really line up with my preferences. I ended up voting for what's-his-name, the Libertarian candidate.
Posted by: Laserlight at Nov 4, 2008 10:06:34 AM
This comment was posted on Alex's entry (by Jens Fiederer, not me) but is worth repeating here:
"Given the cost of only 3 minutes, and the neglected benefits of the coffee reward (not to mention that "I voted today" sticker you get to display to impress your friends with your "dutiful citizen" cred), do you suppose economics may as well give up on any more papers why, despite negative expectations, people bother to vote?"
I don't understand people who don't vote because they don't like either candidate. Not voting doesn't send a clear signal. It's more clearer to actively indicate your dislike by voting for some fringe guy who doesn't have a chance.
Full disclosure: I voted for Anderson in 1980 and Nader in 1996.
Posted by: ZBicyclist at Nov 4, 2008 10:13:41 AM
Actively indicating your dislike by voting for some fringe guy who doesn't have a chance has the additional benefit of expressing the DIRECTION of your dislike.
Full disclosure: I voted for Barr.
Thanks for finding my comment worth repeating, even if you DID vote for Nader :-)
Posted by: Jens Fiederer at Nov 4, 2008 10:27:56 AM
ZBicyclist,
"I don't understand people who don't vote because they don't like either candidate. Not voting doesn't send a clear signal."
I have no responsibility to send a "clear signal" about things that are none of my business. For example, I don't signal my preference between Starbucks and Tim Hortons because I don't drink coffee. An election is where the political class decides who gets what share of the rent collection. I'm not a member of the political class. My responsibility, therefore, begins and ends with sending my rent payment to whoever they tell me to send it to.
Posted by: Randy at Nov 4, 2008 10:44:04 AM
I once said that I did not like voting (I had no choice, in Argentina voting is compulsory!) and someone told me.
"If you do not vote, then you cannot complain if you do not like the policy!". I will refer this as the Complaint Explanation, hereafter.
I assume that the argument for the Complaint Explanation went: if you vote for A and A gets elected and then does The Wrong Thing, you can tell A : "Hey, I voted for you and now you do The Wrong Thing, I want to complain because you have deceived me and disappointed me!". If you vote for A and B gets elected, you can complain if B does The Wrong Thing because you can claim moral superiority and good foresight for having not voted for a candidate who is doing The Wrong Thing.
I hate the Complaint Explanation! It cannot be true but I cannot argue against it in a simple way. I would like to ask Tyler, Alex and other illustrated readers to give me some pointers as to how to reply to the Complaint Explanation.
By the way, The Wrong Thing is a very common outcome for policy decisions in Argentina.
Posted by: londenio at Nov 4, 2008 10:50:47 AM
Most people will not admit they vote only for expressive value. They vote because they think their vote really makes a difference, they really believe their candidate is that much better than the competition, etc. This is ignorance, and that is what they should feel guilty about. Guilty and shamed. If someone votes just because they want to be expressive, okay, whatever. But I will ask that person, why not just participate in some cnn.com online poll? Way easier.
Posted by: Zac at Nov 4, 2008 10:53:02 AM
I voted Mankiw for President.
No, I am not kidding.
Posted by: Robert Olson at Nov 4, 2008 10:54:28 AM
I'll be voting, but that's some awful sharp play by Rolo Tomasi.
Posted by: Michael Drake at Nov 4, 2008 11:03:07 AM
Londenio,
The complaint explanation is propaganda. The political class has an interest in having people believe that they are part of a legitimate process, so they create standard explanations for those who doubt. Its like the standard answers that religious faiths give to their adherents to protect them from the questions of the unbelievers.
Posted by: Randy at Nov 4, 2008 11:05:22 AM
"[Most people] really believe their candidate is that much better than the competition, etc. This is ignorance,"
True for roughly half the electorate.
Posted by: Michael Drake at Nov 4, 2008 11:05:44 AM
„Wer sich nicht mit Politik befasst, hat die politische Parteinahme, die er sich ersparen möchte, bereits vollzogen: er dient der herrschenden Partei.“ (Max Frisch)
Translation:
-> "The one not dealing with politics has already made the political decision he wanted to avoid: he serves the ruling party"
Posted by: voting at Nov 4, 2008 11:09:25 AM
The people who think they are being instrumentally rational by not voting are probably deceiving themselves more. They are actually engaged in an even less transparent form of expressive behavior (protest against the voting system) and yet cloaking that behavior under the guise of instrumental rationality.
Interesting. I have no qualms about non-voting when I know my vote won't possibly make a difference, and yet I would really be agonizing over the decision if I got to personally choose whether McCain or Obama would be president. But you're telling me this dichotomy is self-deception.
I'm also afraid of heights, and I don't know why. Can you explain it for me?
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Nov 4, 2008 11:18:38 AM
Voting,
So not serving the ruling party is now an option? How exactly does one go about that?
Posted by: Randy at Nov 4, 2008 11:23:29 AM
