Annapolis, Md.: Have you explored why some people vote against their own economic interest?
And I gave the following answer: No. But it’s not that surprising, since one vote is really worth very very little. It probably comes down to the fact that most people consider a single vote to be worth far less in electoral oomph than in the value it gives them in terms of their conscience, or belief, or style, or whatever you want to call it. In “What’s the Matter With Kansas?”, Thomas Frank makes much of the fact that blue-collar Republicans are voting against their economic self-interest, which is true. But again, I don’t find it so surprising. Steven Spielberg is voting against his economic self-interest by voting Democratic, no? I think the voting paradigm we all cling to — that economic self-interest rules all — is pretty weak. (I should also note that I don’t know a single economist who bothers to vote, so worthless do they consider the act.)
Since then, I’ve heard from quite a few people, including at least one economist who says she always votes. Today, we heard from one Anna V., who had this to say:
I saw part of the recent Freakonomics Q&A on Washingtonpost.com and was surprised by the assertion that most economists don’t bother to vote because it’s just not worth it. After the extremely close results in the 2000 Gore vs. Bush race (not to mention the extremely close results in a lot of local government races), how can you justify this position? (And give me a break, with all the absentee and other voting options available nowadays, it’s not a big expenditure of time or effort to cast a ballot.)
Anna V. has plainly turned the issue from a “what is” to a “what ought to be,” which I think is perfectly fine. I’d love to hear what others have to say — economists and non-economists — about the utility of voting. (It should also be said that there’s a huge difference in a national election and a local election, which I probably would have noted had the Q&A not been a live one.) Comments welcome.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Well Scott, perhaps you’ll find the answer by reading the first chapter of Freakonomics. There are not only economic incentives but also social and moral incentives. So, though tipping a waitperson on an interstate highway is a good way to lose $3, it is also a good way to do the right thing. When we realize that the people we are tipping count on those tips to eat themselves then *most* of us feel like that’s a pretty good reason. In other words, most people have preferences over not only their own consumption, but the consumption of others too. Is that explanation simple enough for you?
Isn’t this mostly a sophisticated form of the prisoner’s dilemma?
Okay, let’s consider an extreme scenario: maybe everyone in America reads the comments on this blog and decides not to vote in the next presidential election. In that case, one vote *would* make a difference. Whoever voted would get to choose the winner.
Maybe that will never happen, but it could. The fact is that 99% of politics is showing up. If you’ve ever been to a municipal board meeting, you’ll find that the three or four people who show up get their views disproportionately represented and considered. On a large scale, the same thing is true of elections; except there, it’s not about only you showing up, it’s about your “team” showing up.
As annoying as I find the sports metaphors that pervade American politics, they more closely reflect the truth than the idea of one man one vote. People invested in the political process not only vote, they encourage others to vote similarly, and a big part of that encouragement is the creation of a feeling of community and obligation. Actually showing up to the “game” helps create that feeling of obligation (he did it, so I should do it too).
In the end, there is a big payoff to having your “team” show up in greater numbers. Sure, every vote may not end up being necessary, but the opportunity is there.
Why do benchwarmers show up to basketball games? Why do understudies show up to rehearsal?
Part of the value of voting is in being able to honestly say that you voted.
I agree with Dan, in most of the meetings that I’ve attended (municipal level) the decisions are biased in favor of those that come. So if one expects to be the minority in a meeting then there’s no incentive to come… self-fulfilling prophecy.
The situation is probably different voting where there is less interaction, e.g. presidential elections. But once again, if you expect the majority of population to vote against your candidate you wouldn’t even show up then. So expectations are very important in such voting. And things can go wrong if these expectations are arbitrary.
I vote because I get to leave work to do so!
Pierce Brosnan in this week’s TIME magazine [June 20, pg. 75] said he became a U.S. citizen just to have a voice/vote. I wonder if he had read your Wash. Post Q&A first if he would have changed his mind?
One vote will not be pivotal in large elections, so in that sense it is futile to vote. I think the papers by Pensendorfer on strategic voting based on the probability of being pivotal are ridiculous.
That being said, it is a civic duty to vote anyway because without voters our democratic system does not work. There are many who free ride off the voters by not voting and there are many that take pride in not free-riding and actually doing their civic duty.
See, Mr. Dubner, I knew you were becoming an economist. I see Prof. Levitt posted a newspaper article today with no economics included.
Tipping is such a social norm that it is really part of the price of the meal and not an act of genrousity. People tip on interstate highways for the same reasons they do not “dine-and-dash” even when there is little chance of being caught.