The Paradox of Voting--Posner

The paradox of voting in national elections is that, since a single vote is almost certain to have no effect on the outcome (in a Presidential election, it will merely add one digit to an eight-figure number), there seems to be no benefit from voting. The cost is small enough (if it’s high for a person, he is unlikely to vote), but it’s positive, so that if the benefit of voting is zero the voter is being irrational. Yet, as Becker points out, more than 100 million people bothered to vote in the recent Presidential election. 

Some people vote because the political campaigns make it costly for them not to vote—one technique in “get out the vote” drives is pestering people to vote so that they will feel uncomfortable not voting. Some vote because they think that it will encourage others to do so. Some vote because they consider it a civic duty. Some voting is purely expressive—a way of expressing strong feelings pro or con a candidate (or pro one and con his opponent); certainly anger played a role in votes against Romney by members of groups that he or his party seemed to disrespect, and anger at Obama played a role in the large number of votes that Romney received. In this respect voting is like booing or cheering at an athletic event or other entertainment. One person’s applause at a concert is inaudible to the performers, yet people applaud, and not mainly I think because others in the audience would look askance at them if they did not. And finally people interested in politics like to vote to convince themselves and others that their interest is serious—they are willing to put their money (not money exactly, but the cost in time and bother of voting) where their mouth is. 

No one thinks that applauding is irrational, even though like voting it has no instrumental value, and has some, though very slight, cost. 

Campaign advertising and other politicking—debates, the party conventions, etc.—try to excite voters about the election and induce them to vote for particular candidates, and in this respect closely resemble the advertising of consumer products and services. As Becker points out, much campaign rhetoric has little intellectual content, conveys little information, plays on the audience’s emotions, and so on, but in these respects it doesn’t differ much from the marketing of consumer products and services. 

What is wasteful is not the time people spend voting, since they vote only if on balance it is a more valuable use of their time than the alternatives; what may be wasteful is the amount of money that is spent on electioneering, and the amount of candidate time spent on money raising. As with product advertising, so with political advertising, much of the expenditure is offsetting, so that if collusion were permitted there might be a net social benefit. (That is the rationale for campaign expenditure limits.) But there might not be, because of the consumption value of the political advertising and its contribution to the value that people derive from voting.

Comments

[Neilehat]

Why do I vote? More often than not, it's against a candidate as opposed to for a candidate. There's also the issue of not letting that ignoramus "Joe Blow" down the street set and direct policy. And finally there's the issue of losing the right too complain by not voting.

Ahh... Democracy, ain't it grand?

[TANSTAAFL]

Posner offers a rationale for voting that typifies his consequentialist viewpoint (and, perhaps, his yearning for a SCOTUS appointment in Obama's second term). Had such a mindset prevailed in 1776, all of us would remain subjects of the British Crown today.

[HomeShield]

You could also add "fear" as a reason people vote. Many political campaigns use fear as a method to get out the vote and scare people from voting against their opponent.

I personally believe there should be a test people must pass before they vote. I think it would make the process much more effective and put our nation on better footing.

[mrminderbinder]

Isn't this just basically a tragedy of the commons? If one person doesn't vote Democrat it won't make a difference, but if every Democrat decides not to vote because their investment of time is a waste, then America would have had a Romney presidency. Which may well be a bigger cost to a single Democrat than the cost of voting (and vice versa with a Republican and the cost of an Obama presidency).

The tragedy of the commons can be solved 2 ways. First, by everyone voluntarily paying their share in the hope that everyone will do likewise. Probably works OK sometimes - libraries and museums do get built from donations, even though a single donor could opt out and still enjoy the benefits.

So why not canvass the possibility that voters recognise this problem and that the collective practice of voting is a rational response to ensure the self-interest of the individuals who vote a particular way? I vote not because I know that my individual vote counts, but because I know that if every Democrat didn't vote we'd all be worse off ... and, crucially, I know that other Democrats know this as well. So we all vote on this implicit understanding.

Of course the other way to solve thew tragedy of the commons is to compel everyone to pay money to cover the cost of the common good. In Australia we do this via compulsory voting. But that'd probably be too socialist for you Americans :).

[Terry Bennett]

How about voting for Romney in New Jersey, where your contribution is universally acknowledged to be not merely a negligbly small one sixty millionth but truly zero? Large numbers of people in the 42 pre-determined states did stay home.

For me, the wonder of every modern Presidential election has been the 40% or so who do not vote - more than enough voters to elect an entirely different candidate. Our winning candidate barely gets 30% of the eligible vote.

The referenced "paradox" is created by our hosts' chosen perspective, through the eyes of the individual. Voting is necessarily a team effort. A player who goes 0-for-20 in the World Series, or one who rides the bench, still gets a ring if his team wins. The party-aligned individual is involved in a quasi-contractual relationship within the election process. The independent who self-aligns also signs on to the compact and commits to the responsibility of voting.

Others, such as myself, have higher aspirations than free-riding - which is not only why I voted at all but also precisely why I voted as I did, foregone futility notwithstanding. It is morally offensive to me to have to listen to a man who has never actually produced anything in his whole life, lecturing another man who paid $1.9 million in incomes taxes last year about his "fair share". You can get a lot of votes when you promise to give your constituents benefits and make somebody else pay for them, but I do not believe this bodes well for the country. I prize our equality even more than our freedom, and it has been systematically taken from us by the inherent and even lauded free-riding built into the Democratic agenda.

[RPS5]

The authors are clearly brilliant, yet in this case their point is foolish and shortsighted. Ultimately, the economist's best interest is to preserve whatever society/environment allows them to best be heard, produce, and enjoy recognition and profit without state restriction. And nothing contributes to that end more than preserving the pillars considered indivisible from that type of society- in this case, respectively, the economist friendly USA and its voting system. And empirically railing against the voting pillar as frivolous does nothing but erode, albeit very gradually, the societal abstractions key to supporting the private economics profession as a whole.

[Lbsiegel]

I voted because it's my civic duty. Surely Professors Becker and Posner, who, like me, are over 50 and took civics in school, have heard of that.

I was under no illusion that, as a resident of uncontested Illinois, my Presidential vote would make a difference. But we also had hotly contested elections for congressman and state representative. Anyway, my ancestors fought, and some died, for the right to vote so I'm going to do it.