First off, Economics assumes people to be rational actors and to act in their own self-interest. That's not to say that we also don't care for others, but that our decisions are based on maximizing our well being (if that means helping feed children to make our world better to live in or to make ourselves feel better, then that counts).
So first off, there is what's called the Voting Paradox, and it is expressed as:
pB - C > 0
where p is the probability of casting the deciding vote in an election, B is the benefit we gain from our favored candidate winning, and C is the costs of voting. If the left side is greater than 0, the rational choice is to vote.
In 1989 Dennis Mueller calculated the probability of casting the deciding vote (p) as 0.000006. So if the B term was a huge monetary benefit, say $100,000, the pB term would end up as $6. Immediately we can see that if there are any costs at all (over $6 in this example), unless B is unbelievably big, we should (rationally speaking) never vote.
B is generally small for most people. It could be, say, a $1000 tax break, some new government services, etc.
C is generally large, in that it includes not only monetary costs like gas to get to the polling place, but also includes the opportunity costs of lost wages (for example, a lawyer who charges $500 an hour who takes 1-2 hours to go vote), and also lost time doing errands or other things. This especially includes the time taken to do research on the candidates on each ticket as well as any referendums or propositions that might be on the ballot.
There are a few "solutions" to the paradox. The first is the Marginalist Solution, which doesn't seek to answer "Why Vote?" but rather looks at how changing the variables affects voter behavior. For example, if p increases, and your chance of casting the deciding vote is higher, you are more likely to go to the poll, and voter turnout rises overall. If B increases, which is especially true in elections where public spending increases are promised, voter turnout will also rise. If C increases through, say, bad weather, distance to polls, or the fear of registration because of the link to jury selection, then turnout will fall. If C decreases, due to Motor/Voter automatic registration, candidates providing transport to polls, weekend voting, lower costs of obtaining information (internet sites, blogs, cable TV), or even an emotional connection to a particular party, voter turnout will increase.
The C-Term Solution basically claims that C=0, based on those factors I just mentioned (access to information, auto registration, transportation being provided).
The B-Term Solution claims that B is a very high number because of the altruism motive, that people are voting to benefit everyone else, and that the combined benefits to all other people are included in a person's B term.
The p-Term Solution focuses on different ways of calculating p, and is math-heavy and not really that practical.
The D-Term Solution, however, introduces a new term into the equation, so that we now have:
pB + D - C > 0
where D represents all non-monetary factors related to voting. Bragging rights, civic duty, pride, happiness, etc. It's a very hard term to measure for obvious reasons, but also explains why we make a seemingly very irrational decision.
The true moral of the story is that there are, in fact, benefits to voting, even if the costs of voting are high as well. Rational or not, voting is what has made this country as great as it is. So in a couple weeks, indulge in a little irrational behavior and vote.
Posts
