[EM] Why do voters vote?

[Michael Allan]

Terry Bouricius wrote:
> 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.

(I suspect the fundamental reasons must be social.  There's a
 satisfying symmetry to it then, because the higher purpose of voting
 is definitely social.)

> 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.)

Another perspective: consider other modes of rationality aside from
instrumental reason.  Instrumental reason posits an objective world
that is to be manipulated (pulling levers as it were).  But social
theory also allows for other worlds, including a subjective (inner)
world, and an inter-subjective (social) world.  These can have their
own particular rationalities (none the less "rational" or "reasonable"
for that).

> This is a fascinating topic, that makes the debates about methods, or 
> ordinal vs. cardinal voting seem a bit lacking.

I agree, it could open doors.  Why vote?  Consider a linguistic
perspective.  Voting can be viewed as a form of self-expression,
essentially a form of speech.  Why speak?  Phrased this way, the
question leads into language-based social theory, which might be made
serviceable for voting.

Practical angle: If voting is a form of speech, then maybe it ought to
be as free, easy and ubiquitous as the natural forms "I agree", or a
simple nod of the head directed at an interlocutor.  So we could make
the *form* of the vote flexible enough to contain the rational
*substance* (the particular "why") without distorting it.  Then the
sum of all these high-fidelity votes might amount, in the end, to a
substansive democracy.

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 647-436-4521
http://zelea.com/