Traditionally people believe the act of voting is a necessary democratic act. After all, we have not always had the privilege of electing our public servants. Historically we have been ruled on the basis of bloodline or those with the largest, strongest armies. So, with such a great deal of freedom as we have today, we should celebrate such a condition by revealing our preferences through the act of voting. Voting is often thought of as our civic duty, it is what the forefathers fought for, and insert whatever other moral and emotionally charged excuse people come up with here.
I don’t feel this way. In fact, for myself, I can’t find a real good reason to vote at all. It seems as though it is more trouble than its worth, puts forth very little change, exerts unnecessary cost on society, and I get no thrill or feel that no good moral deed is done through my vote.
Also, voting is costly to yourself with very little benefit. If one is truly doing their civic duty, maybe one ought to become familiar with the issues and where each candidate stands on those issues. This takes a great deal of effort and time to read the relevant material on every policy subject the candidate you are voting for will affect. Not only that, but then you have to actually form an informed opinion on these subjects, find out where the candidates stands, and then decide which candidate best represents your views. After all that, you have to go to the polling place, wait in line, and, finally, cast your vote. What are you awarded with? Nothing more than an “I voted” sticker to show the world you made your insignificant contribution to society.
Wait a second. Insignificant? Why did I just do all that research on the issues and the candidates positions?
Well, because you didn’t consider the likelihood of actually effecting the outcome of the election is, effectively, nil. Here is Steven Landsburg in Slate to explain:
Your individual vote will never matter unless the election in your state is within one vote of a dead-even tie. (And even then, it will matter only if your state tips the balance in the electoral college.) What are the odds of that? Well, let’s suppose you live in Florida and that Florida’s 6 million voters are statistically evenly divided—meaning that each of them has (as far as you know) exactly a 50/50 chance of voting for either Bush or Kerry—the statistical equivalent of a coin toss. Then the probability you’ll break a tie is equal to the probability that exactly 3 million out of 6 million tosses will turn up heads. That’s about 1 in 3,100—roughly the same as the probability you’ll be murdered by your mother.
Advertisement
And that’s surely a gross overestimate of your influence, because it assumes there’s no bias at all in your neighbors’ preferences. Even a slight change in that assumption leads to a dramatic change in the conclusion. If Kerry (or Bush) has just a slight edge, so that each of your fellow voters has a 51 percent likelihood of voting for him, then your chance of casting the tiebreaker is about one in 10 to the 1,046th power—approximately the same chance you have of winning the Powerball jackpot 128 times in a row. (emphasis added)
For those of us who live in New York State, the situation is far worse. Last time around, about 6.5 million votes were cast for major party candidates in New York state and 63 percent of them went to Al Gore. Assuming an electorate of similar size with a similar bias, my chance of casting the deciding vote in New York is about one in 10 to the 200,708th power. I have a better chance of winning the Powerball jackpot 7,400 times in a row than of affecting the election’s outcome. Which makes it pretty hard to see why I should vote.
Sure, Landsburg was explaining a national election during a presidential term. But, according to research by Casey Mulligan and Charles Hunter state and local elections are not all that far departed from the same problems. As Dubner and Levitt explain in the New York Times Mulligan and Hunter:
…analyzed more than 56,000 Congressional and state-legislative elections since 1898. For all the attention paid in the media to close elections, it turns out that they are exceedingly rare. The median margin of victory in the Congressional elections was 22 percent; in the state-legislature elections, it was 25 percent. Even in the closest elections, it is almost never the case that a single vote is pivotal. Of the more than 40,000 elections for state legislator that Mulligan and Hunter analyzed, comprising nearly 1 billion votes, only 7 elections were decided by a single vote, with 2 others tied. Of the more than 16,000 Congressional elections, in which many more people vote, only one election in the past 100 years – a 1910 race in Buffalo – was decided by a single vote.
Essentially what it comes down to is what economist Patricia Funk stated in her paper Social Incentives and Voter Turnouts: Evidence from the Swiss Mail Ballot System, “Since instrumental benefits are close to zero, but not the costs from going to the polls, a rational individual should abstain from voting.”
So why do people vote?
Well, first of all out of those eligible to vote, only about half do. Those that do may do so for any reason, but I think one of the most important reasons is that since they were small children they were constantly told that it is their civic duty to vote until it is pounded into to their little, soft head. I remember my middle school civics teacher, and almost everyone I have ever talked to about this issue, constantly telling me that it is my civic duty and that those that do not vote have no right to complain. Most people took it at face value and never questioned it, eventually parroting the same line. However, I’m with George Carlin on this one.
On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. . . . . . . If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote — who did not even leave the house on Election Day — am in no way responsible for what these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created.
What it comes down to, why people vote, is because of social norms. Because many people view voting as their civic duty. We, as social beings, tend to want to impress others and feel like we have made a difference doing so. I don’t vote because I don’t believe either. Social norms are an important part of civil society, but some social norms are, from my own subjective view, wrong. Voting, alone, is not fulfilling any meaningful civic duty. Donating to charity, making a product that people will buy, working in soup kitchens, picking up trash from ditches, singing in a choir, keeping healthy, going to work and doing it well, buying consumer goods that make your life easier, helping children learn, and cleaning up trash from a local park are fulfilling meaningful social duties. Voting, contrary to public opinion, is largely insignificant and a wasteful signal of fulfilling a social duty compared to the actions listed above or any other productive action one could take.
So, abstain from voting this year and do something productive instead. Or, if you prefer, just relax. Most of all, don’t feel bad about it.
More Links:
Voting Schmoting. A PBS Interview with Gordon Tullock on voting. “You’re more likely to be killed while driving to the polling booth than the likelihood your vote will change the outcome.”
Not Voting and Proud by Brian Doherty (Reason)
Should you vote? by Tyler Cowen (Marginal Revolution) “Overall I view voting as a selfish act, usually done for purposes of self-image. But this has some altruistic and some non-altruistic ramifications… I fondly recall Gordon Tullock’s point: “The paradox is not why people vote, but why everyone doesn’t vote for himself.”
Hat tip to Larry Ribstein and Peter Klein for most of the links I used.