Economists are unable to explain a lot of things (e.g., the Collapse of 2008, whether European governments should spend more or spend less, etc.). One of the persistent mysteries to economists is why Americans vote. There are almost no races that are decided by just one vote. One does not get paid for voting. Here in Massachusetts, the typical citizen is handed a November ballot in which 75 percent of the candidates are running unopposed.
I’m wondering if one reason that people go to the polls is that they feel superior to other Americans after they vote. One often hears people talking about folks who vote for the other party as “stupid”. How could those millions of people, nearly 50 percent of American voters in fact, be taken in by statements that are so obviously false? They must be stupid. If people who vote the opposite of me are stupid… that makes me smart! So after I come back from the polls I can feel smarter than approximately 50 percent of Americans.
Thoughts on this theory?
There’s probably a mathematical theory that shows the effect of a single vote is greater than no vote, even though it’s impact is 0.0000001% & humans biologically can’t really govern themselves. Most of them still believe in an infallible supreme being who’s going to bless them for doing their duty, even though such a supreme being has been proven clueless.
We can either perform acts that we think make things turn out best directly, or we can perform acts that follow rules that make things turn out best when followed by almost everyone. If we’re going to do one of those two, the latter (rule-consequentialism) is usually considered a better idea. (Counter-intuitively, it tends to lead to better consequences than trying to optimize consequences directly.)
So, I don’t have to believe that my vote counts — obviously, in MA a presidential vote doesn’t count for anything, although there’s the close senate race — to believe that everybody ought to vote. And if everyone ought to vote, that includes me.
It’s unclear whether you don’t recognize that this might be the motivation (perhaps held in a more concise form like “it’s our patriotic duty to vote”), or whether you recognize this motivation but disagree that it’s true that the country works better when we have a rule that says that everyone should vote.
I’ve always figured it was just tribalism. Why do Americans “root for” a local sports team and get angry if somebody else “roots for” an opposing one? It makes no objective difference to your life if “your” team wins and whether you “root for” it makes no difference to their chance of winning. Yet people feel compelled to participate and the die-hards feel like they’ve let down the team if they didn’t watch the game. And will remember key wins or losses for years or decades after the event.
Politics is an *unusually boring* sporting event but it basically has the same dynamic. You vote to “send a message” that you like team A, not to change the result of the vote.
Sometimes we do things because they’re the right thing to do rather than out of some marginal advantage. The more this is encouraged, the healthier the society.
From my own experience, people vote as a matter of civic duty. It simply makes them feel better about themselves for doing “the right thing.” Look, why do some people get a lump in their throat when they hear the anthem and see their flag? People love their country, their society, and their community, and they want to do things that they feel are good for it. We humans are social creatures who have some motivations which go beyond the direct what-can-I-get-out-of-it-today mentality. Evolutionary biologists can argue about the mechanism that would cause us to evolve such emotions, but it seems clear that they exist. Once you’ve accepted that people vote because of some psychic benefit they feel from voting, I don’t know why you’d jump to a cynical reason like the one you gave. I think the simpler explanation works better: people think it’s good for their country, it’s not too much work, and people like to feel good about themselves.
I think you are right to the extent that people like to vote to make a statement about themselves. I am smarter/more caring/more patriotic than others.
Also civic mindedness must have an effect.
A quick look at Wiki superficially backs this up. Wiki says that voter turnout has declined from low 60’s % or so in the 1950s to low 50s % now. I believe the 50s was an era of high civic mindedness, whereas now is an era of low civic mindedness. Of course there are a lot of other ways in which the 50s was different to now.
I think people really do believe in the Kantian imperative — if nobody voted, we would clearly be worse off (in a democracy). So those of us who see a bigger picture than just “Will my vote be the determining factor?” vote.
I do think that makes us feel more virtuous than the 50% or so of the public that doesn’t vote, but I don’t think it has much to do with comparative intelligence.
It’s a gamble. Folks who play mega million love placing small bets with almost non-existent chance for a big win. With presidential vote the small bet has about 50% chance of winning. it’s hard to pass that up 🙂
One time I found myself giving a TV the finger because it displayed an image of GW Bush. I felt a little better. Voting against him gave me an even greater feeling of satisfaction, though it was similarly pointless.
If voting was rational and not emotional, campaigns would focus on issues that matter rather than vilification.
As to your theory, it may be that people around Cambridge think being smart is something to brag about, but most people don’t care too much.
I vote in primaries, so I feel extra civic minded. I do believe it matters, but theoretically you could minimize the personal burden of voting. And certainly the cost of election advertising and campaigning. If you could have an acceptably random sample of people who would be able to vote and others just wouldn’t worry about it; I doubt that would ever be seriously considered though.
I have often not bothered to vote because the choice between candidates is often limited to shades of grey which turns the whole act into a mere inconvenience. Most recently, I decided to vote only to show my support for third party candidates because I know no other way to break the republican/democrat blockade and I’ve tired of tossing out my vote on a broken system.
It is also pretty easy for me to vote since I walk about a half mile from my house down to the old mill to stand in no line, cast my vote, and walk home. And it does have kind of a social air that has appeal; I just wish we could vote for more meaningful things instead of pushing that off to the folks we elect to ‘represent’ us.
You’re right. I know democrats who think republicans are all dumbasses and vice versa. I think they’re both right.
Both the boobocracy and it’s discontents got comuppance back in the 1970s in Christopher Lasch’s excellent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture_of_Narcissism
I think you are spot on – I was actually appalled on my way to work this morning listening to the callers into NPR talking about the election. All of them, every one of them, mentioned the word “stupid” when referring to Romney or undecided voters. Their tone of voice and comments were so condescending and rude it was incredible. I’m sure they felt great about their superior intellect all day, completely unaware that their tone and word selection proved exactly the opposite. 🙂