Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Congress, and the executive. Now we turn to the fourth branch: you all, the
citizenry. In the remainder of the course we ask how you - - voters, parties,
instructed.
- Speak publicly.
NRA, etc.).
campaigns are
1
publicly financed.)
Why Vote?
It is hard to explain who votes and how, because it is hard to explain why
people vote at all. The paradox of not voting is that one vote makes no
difference, so why bother to vote? - - but people do. In other words, because a
single vote never makes a difference, it is hard to explain voting the same way
rational to gamble?
Consider the following decision matrix (or table). It looks a bit like PD and
other games, but it is not a game at all because, instead of two or more
players, it has but one. He is playing against “nature,” or “chance,” not against
another player.
“Bet” and “Don’t bet” are strategies. “Heads” and “Tails” are states of
2
nature. It is rational to bet only if the probability of winning times the amount
Rational if
p x winnings ≥ bet.
Suppose:
bet = $1
and
winnings = $2.50
Then
So it is rational to bet.
But now suppose that winnings are only $0.75. Then the bet is irrational.
Or suppose the potential winnings stay at $2.50 but the probability of heads
We can apply the same kind of logic to ask when it is rational to carry an
umbrella. Let p = 0.1, cost = 0.5, and value of staying dry = 10. Then it is
0.1 x 10 ≥ 0.5,
3
umbrella (0.1 x 10) exceeds the cost (0.5), so it is indeed rational to carry an
umbrella.
Suppose, however, that the cost of carrying the umbrella were not 0.5 but
Here, f is the voter’s favorite candidate: he votes for f or does not vote at
all. The cost of voting is the opportunity cost - - the value of forgone benefits,
Judged as usual, it is rational for a voter to vote for f if and only if the
probability that his vote will make a difference (p) multiplied by how much he
stands to gain by f’s victory equals or exceeds the cost of voting, that is,
Suppose that
cost of voting = $1
and
4
p = 1/100,000.
With these values, which are unrealistically favorable to the voter’s calculus,
voting seems irrational. If anything, the probability that a person’s vote will be
[Hitler was elected head of the Nazi Party by one vote, and President
Andrew Johnson escaped impeachment conviction by one vote. But the voters
One is that the election is close. But not all elections are close, and even
unusually close ones are never decided by one vote. It is true that a voter is
that is like saying a tall man is more likely than a short man to bump his head
on the moon.
A third hypothesis is that voting is not very costly - - or most people don’t
find it so. True, we are a lazy species: we prize leisure. But for that very reason
5
gregarious species: sitting still in solitude often fails to please, however
altruistic, to help our fellows, to benefit society and not merely ourselves. True,
unfair to profit from the efforts of others (those who share our political ideals)
Possibly the most popular hypothesis is that citizens see voting as their
duty and receive some gratification from doing their duty. This hypothesis
modifies the above rationality condition to say that voting is rational if and
A more general hypothesis is that the act of voting has not only
investment value but also consumption value. This means that the act of
voting is important not only because it helps the voter further his aims but also
because he finds the act itself gratifying. Most of our acts have both
procreating. A good job has both kinds of value: it supports you but you enjoy
because it is hard to tell thereby why some people vote while others do not.
6
A problem similar to the paradox of not voting involves the act of
acquiring information about politics. Why would anyone spend time learning
about the issues and candidates? Why would anyone read the newspaper?
politics. This would suggest that newspaper editors who are interested in
tidbits of gossip in articles about politics. Sensationalism is often the only way
of getting people to read. It gives the act of reading more consumption value.
One can also ask, Why contribute money? or Why join a party or interest
group?
In both of these problems the logic is similar. You have to choose between
Your payoff from participating depends on what everyone else does. You are
playing a game with everyone else who shares your interests. The game is a
7
in Hunk One.
“everyone else” does – participate or not – you are always better off not
To sum up: It is hard to explain participation, for two reasons. One is that
participation is not like most other behavior: a single vote makes no difference.
Yet a good explanation cannot imply that no one votes. The other reason is
that participation varies: some people participate and others do not. A good
Who Votes?
Let us now take a different tack. Instead of asking why, let us ask who and
Initial studies of voting found that the rich were more likely to vote. Why
• They are more likely to have personal acquaintances running for office.
• They are less likely than poor people to feel alienated from the system.
8
Note that none mentions cost. Maybe that is as it should be: voting is not that
costly. People like going out and doing things. They are generally not so lazy
that the act of voting proves too cumbersome. Instead, people are gregarious
and restless. They also like to talk about having done things. This observation,
in combination with the fact that people do have a sense of civic duty, is a nice
potential explanation.
At first, political scientists thought along similar lines. They found that
wealth or income was positively correlated with voting, thought that wealth
drove (caused) voting, and considered some of the explanations just surveyed.
They were wrong. It was education, not income, that was the real cause of
voting.
9
It turned out that the observed correlation between income and voting was
with the same educational level were compared, their differences in income
only to the extent that they were associated with differences in education. But
when people with the same income were compared, their likelihood of voting
clothes, they catch more colds. Of course, it is not the wearing of warm clothes
that’s causing the colds but of a third factor, cold weather, that’s causing both
the colds and the wearing of warm clothes. Again, the more frequently people
hire lawyers the more likely they are to go to prison. Are criminal suspects
voting) appear to be causally related but in fact are both caused by a third
factor (education).
that is, knowing a persons’ income would help us to predict his likelihood of
the likelihood of voting among people who have the same income.
Thanks to various studies, we now know the following things about who is
10
more likely to vote:
greater likelihood of
2. Education. More educated people vote more than less educated people.
Someone who has completed high school is about 22 percent more like to
who has not. The difference in the likelihood of voting for a college
old. It declines
on both sides of this peak: the very young and the very old are the least
likely to vote.
4. Sex. When it comes to voting, men and women are similar until they
that, men are less likely to vote. Maybe men die sooner.
5. Marriage. Married people are more likely to vote than single people.
6. Mobility. The more mobile the person, the less likely he is to vote. This
makes sense:
11
someone who moves a lot knows less about local office holders and the
7. At first blush, race appears to have an effect on voting, but when one
other factors as education, its effect vanishes. A person’s race does not
to vote.
voting. Public
employees are much more likely to vote than others, (83 vs. 65 percent).
more about public issues. Maybe they have a bigger stake in electoral
outcomes. Or maybe
marriage, public
employment, and age, whereas race and income are spuriously correlated
with voting.
Variations in Turnout
Turnout varies, not only among population groups, but over time and
• Lower since 1976. The onset of the decline in turnout coincides roughly
12
with the time 18 year-olds were allowed to vote. (Test by looking at
• Lower in the South (less than 50 percent). The South was traditionally a
rarely challenged, so there was little incentive to vote. Also, blacks were
discouraged by such means as the poll tax and threats of violence. Now
the South is no longer a one – party region. Even so, turnout remains
relatively low, possibly out of habit. Also education has historically been
• Lower in the US than in Europe. US: 50-60 percent. Europe: 75-90 percent.
Why the difference between the U.S. and Europe? Some suggestions from
students:
about voting.
13
they value it more.
general plays a far greater role in their lives. Thus, Europeans have more
• Europeans pay more taxes and thus have a greater incentive to monitor
their government.
1) Apathy
automatically
registered.)
it is less likely that they know or care much about local issues. Also
in Europe.
that cut across each other and are also changing over time. It is confusing:
you stand still while the electoral communities to which you belong keep
moving.
5) US voters vote much more frequently and on many more issues and
14
candidates. In the US, within the course of four years a voter typically has
test for the period 1972-76 reveals that the turnout in Europe and the US
firemen eat one or two big meals a day (which they cook) while cops eat
15