[EM] Why do voters vote? (or why do we even bother to have elections?)

[robert bristow-johnson]

On Apr 15, 2010, at 9:46 AM, Terry Bouricius wrote:

> There has been some interesting writing about disputes over the  
> value of
> "rational choice" theory, especially as applied to voting. Since a  
> single
> voter's vote has almost no chance of having any impact, it is  
> rational to
> avoid the burden of learning about candidates, and of course  
> rational to
> not vote if it takes any effort at all.  However, most voters who do  
> vote
> do undertake at least a little effort to learn about some  
> candidates, and
> bother to vote. Either they are deluded and irrational (which is  
> certainly
> a reasonable conclusion), or they participate for other reasons.
>
> Perhaps most voters are fundamentally not behaving AS INDIVIDUALS,  
> but as
> a part of a collective ...in solidarity with a team of fellow  
> citizens (or
> party members, members of an ethnic group, or whatever). Analysis that
> focuses on the choices of individuals can miss the social aspect of
> voting, which may be more fundamental.
>
> Some voters may, however, participate as individuals simply because it
> gives them a feeling of satisfaction. In Bryan Caplan's book, _The  
> Myth of
> the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies_, he  
> presents a
> theory of "rational irrationality." He argues that voters rationally
> choose to vote irrationally (in terms of policy), because the
> psychological satisfaction of voting in line with one's (erroneous)
> beliefs outweighs the risk of negative outcomes from that action  
> (since
> each vote has virtually zero impact on the outcome.)
>
> This is a fascinating topic, that makes the debates about methods, or
> ordinal vs. cardinal voting seem a bit lacking.

i do *not* think that it makes the debates about methods, etc. lacking  
at all.  it brings the debate to a fundamental level.  why do we even  
*have* voting and participatory democracy?  what problem or exercise  
are we trying to solve by having elections?  (alternatives could  
include qualifying examinations, can you imagine how poorly Bush would  
have done if he had to pass a meaningful written exam to become  
president?) when we keep those fundamental questions in mind, we might  
be able to debate meaningfully about election methods.

i also think that this Nash thingie is a non-issue.  and i continue to  
think that, on a fundamental level, if participatory democracy and  
equal weighting of every participating citizen's vote are axiomatic,  
then Condorcet is the *only* sensible method, the only issue is, in  
the unlikely case of a cycle, how to meaningfully resolve that cycle  
(Schulze is probably the best but Tideman is likely to get the same  
outcome and is more transparent and easier for "One person, one vote"  
yahoos to understand).

the alternative (to Condorcet) is that we possibly elect someone when  
a majority of us agree that another *specific* candidate is a better  
choice. (and how can that be democratic?)  it's amazing to me that  
this was known about for 2 centuries and never adopted in any  
governmental election method, and it's amazing to me that FairVote  
passed over Condorcet in favor of STV when introducing and selling  
Preferential Voting to various governments.  it was and continues to  
be a big mistake and we need to continue to hold Rob's feet to the  
fire about that.

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."