[EM] Why do voters vote?

[Dave Ketchum]

This is getting too deep in some ways.  I buy Terry's collective and  
think of the rope in a tug of war.  We had an election in my village  
last month.

We do Plurality and have local parties (involving national parties  
would distract from considering local issues - also, few consider  
themselves members of these local parties) and 800 voters:
      I, the ins, would like to continue.
      C would like to "throw all the bums out".  There has been much  
controversy this past year.
      4 trustee positions:  C won each by a dozen votes.  Agreement  
that I had failed to do well.
      Mayor (I)  reelected by a dozen votes.  Agreement, though weak,  
that he was not to blame for what had happened.

Certainly no single voter decided the election, but they did know that  
a very few, together, staying home or getting out and voting, could  
have affected which way the rope went.

I do not see social above - people are affected by, and care about,  
how well the village board attends to their needs.

When I read of "rational irrationality" below, I wonder if the real  
topic may be deciding how to measure and add up conflicting needs and  
desires.

Dave Ketchum.

On Apr 17, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Michael Allan wrote:

> 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 yan 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/