Is voting a rational act?
A one-vote win is rare even in local or state races, which attract smaller turnout. The largest numbers of voters — about 6 in 10 eligible adults — come out for presidential years. Yet the presidency’s never turned on just one vote, not even in the 2000 recount that flummoxed Florida.
It’s so improbable that scholars debate whether voting is a rational act.
“There is no question that from a simplistic rational view it doesn’t make sense to vote,” said Kevin Lanning, a political psychologist at Florida Atlantic University. “Even in Florida I’m more likely to be killed in an auto accident going to the polls than I am to cast the deciding vote in the presidential election.”…
[Gelman] says voting can be a rational investment of time. That’s partly because the outcome affects so many people. It’s like entering a lottery that you almost certainly won’t win, but if you do win, all 315 million Americans share your jackpot — the president you believe will do more for the country.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
See, now four years ago, they were asking if not voting for OBAMA was a rational act. Their desperation is sweet…
Is that wrong to feel that way?
UnderstandingisPower on November 5, 2012 at 6:03 PM
All elections are won by one vote – the one that puts one candidate above the other. All subsequent votes are pure gravy.
OldEnglish on November 5, 2012 at 6:05 PM
However, the odds of having some cloistered, liberal arts-trained imbecile to say something so obvious that it’s stupid, are pretty high.
Thomas More on November 5, 2012 at 6:07 PM
this makes no sense whatsoever. It conflates the risk of a catastrophic event with the probability of an outcome….and that is instructive, how?
ted c on November 5, 2012 at 6:09 PM
If only we could be more like China and not have the pesky citizens getting in the way of the important decision making.
Bishop on November 5, 2012 at 6:09 PM
If this is a message to Obama voters, may I be the first to shreik: RAAAACIIIST!!!
If this is pointed at Romney voters…well, never mind.
squint on November 5, 2012 at 6:11 PM
Actually it isn’t rational. The odds that your vote is the deciding vote is 1 in a trillion–at least in a state wide election. However this calculation isn’t healthy to make when thinking about voting on a massive scale.
Donald Draper on November 5, 2012 at 6:12 PM
Christie is a piece of shi* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/05/chris-christie-mitt-romney_n_2079371.html?1352156848
Donald Draper on November 5, 2012 at 6:13 PM
Voting for president may not be terribly rational, but you don’t just vote for president. You also vote for many other races, and in many of those one vote can have and has had a large effect.
alwaysfiredup on November 5, 2012 at 6:15 PM
Nope and that is why we should do the reasonable thing and make BO a king and declare that nobody not from the BO line can ever rule this country. I look forward to this because considering history all the media, Hollywood elites, academics and such will be the first up against the wall. We could call it the American Cultural Rev…. Oops, almost wrote a forbidden word.
Frank Enstine on November 5, 2012 at 6:15 PM
There are the intangables. For instance, if you don’t vote, you can’t fully enjoy crushing your enemies and seeing them driven before you.
Boogeyman on November 5, 2012 at 6:16 PM
I go to honor those that died so I have the option and also to honor those that can’t.
kim roy on November 5, 2012 at 6:18 PM
Brandstetter should have scratched out Johnsons name and written his own. Double good feeling and as valuable.
BL@KBIRD on November 5, 2012 at 6:18 PM
It is rational given the common understanding that you aren’t voting alone. If too many acted as you do there would be a loss rather than a win, so its perfectly rational to act with a common purpose towards a common goal even if you personally cannot take credit for the exact vote that created the tipping point.
sharrukin on November 5, 2012 at 6:20 PM
Couple of things: It’s HuffPoo so it goes into my “dubious reality file” immediately. Also, as much as it pains me to defend Christie on this, he has other things to worry about right now, like hurricane damage.
Now if you were to be complaining about his apparent starf***ing over Bruce Springsteen…
kim roy on November 5, 2012 at 6:21 PM
That’s true in my state because unless you vote commie, err democrap your vote pretty much goes into a black hole. I know of four family members like me that will vote a straight repub ticket but that will be more than canceled out by the majority of my family being idiots and voting for dems. I find it hard to think my family is stupid enough to vote for Warren but they are.
Frank Enstine on November 5, 2012 at 6:21 PM
And if you think about it, no one soldier ever wins the war, so joining the military is irrational. One more rifle on the battlefield isn’t going to make a difference. Your nation will either win or be conquered, and there is little if anything you can do to change it. Just stay home and watch Dancing with the Stars.
Boogeyman on November 5, 2012 at 6:22 PM
Browncoatone on November 5, 2012 at 6:23 PM
This reminds me of the invitation I got to a PTA meeting last year. Whichever class had the most parents got free pizza. I didn’t want to be the parent to cause the whole class to not have pizza. I was the only one who showed up from my daughter’s class. I thought “Nobody wants to be “that guy”", but I was wrong.
Night Owl on November 5, 2012 at 6:24 PM
It would be rational if there were a statuesque blonde inside the booth waiting for me with a glass of champagne in one shapely hand and a paddle in the other. Otherwise not so much.
Seth Halpern on November 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM
One soldier saves lives all the time. Not an apt analogy.
Donald Draper on November 5, 2012 at 6:31 PM
The words “selfish” and “rational” are not synonymous.
logis on November 5, 2012 at 6:34 PM
Is voting a rational act?
Not if you’re voting Democrat.
RJL on November 5, 2012 at 6:35 PM
She taking you for a canoe ride? I’d prefer a martini during my ride.
Frank Enstine on November 5, 2012 at 6:56 PM
No, of course voting isn’t rational. That’s why it’s a civic duty: You don’t need a “duty” to do things that benefit you rationally. If one rational person declines to vote, that doesn’t cause any meaningful harm, just as if one person jumps the turnstile and refuses to pay the subway fare. However, if everybody jumps the turnstile, the subway will go bankrupt and harm everybody, and if every rational person refuses to vote, the country will be ruled by irrational voters. (You can argue that this has already happened; not germane to my point here.) Therefore, you have a duty that transcends your rational interest to pay the subway fare, and you have a duty that transcends your rational interest to vote.
Fabozz on November 5, 2012 at 6:57 PM
The premise is so profound and breathtaking in its stupidity that my sole comment will be to note the profundity.
And now, to breath deeply.
Axe on November 5, 2012 at 8:09 PM