Steven Levitt says a few quick remarks at Freakonomics (what an insane close up on his face too, geez) about voting. First, the probability of your vote being decisive is very small. He implicitly says it’s irrational to vote with the intention of changing an election. He does note that it can still be rational to vote, period, if you get utility from being a citizen or whatever.
Andrew Gelman responds: It is rational to vote even if you don’t get utility from the action of voting. If you think your preferred candidate will raise everyone’s standard of living by say $50, then you’re essentially buying one free lottery ticket: really bad odds of winning, but a huge payoff.
I side with Gelman; he bested the economists this time. It’s almost like the economists forgot that expected value has two pieces: the probability of success and the payoff.
I can only think of what would have happened if me and 500 other people hadn’t voted for Bush in 2000. Everything changes. I feel like there is a really good argument favoring voting that wasn’t made… I’m gonna think about it, but of course I agree with your comments, Matt. The payoffs can be pretty huge and at such a minimum of cost.
oh for crying out loud. first the alligator’s editorial board and now steve levitt?
I would say that on national elections voters tend to vote on ideology and principle more than on how a candidate’s policy will affect him/her monetarily. The monetary costs/benefits play a bigger role in local elections, since the effects will usually have a larger and more direct impact on the voters wallet. Although given the Democrats threat to socialize healthcare, I suspect the strength of the “monetary” variable will be increasing in the upcoming Presidential election - since it will be more than a few dimes and nickels per voter that will be at stakes.
Well… two things, quickly. One: many people vote to vote against the other person. Two: many people vote based on personal preferences about the person’s likability. I may not be right, but I don’t remember the last time a person lost an election who was more liked on a personal level than the other candidate. While Democrats prefer to say it was the empty rhetoric of the Federal Marriage Amendment and the War on Terror in 2004 that won it (since they’re incapable of admitting Republicans can win on people preferring them), I think it had a lot to do with personality. A lot lot.