Now that the voting is over...

Economists always like to bring up the (ir)rationality of voting during election times. I often wonder if it is just a ploy to get the non-economists (and therefore less informed population, of course!) to not vote on election day, thereby boosting the influence of those who do vote. Regardless, it goes back and forth.

Earlier this week, Makiw revisited an article that he wrote on the benefits of not voting. What I like about this article is that it not only explains why people don't vote, but makes a normative statement that there are those who *shouldn't* vote.

There are those who argue with this desciption. Benefits are not always as simple as getting a particular candidate to win. Many of us (myself included) derive implicit benefits from the act of voting itself. Or maybe its simply the joy one gets from cheering for the winning team, even though it won't help their team win the game (D. Friedman). Perhaps people are altruistic and the benefits they enjoy are not simply those direct benefits. From Statistical Modeling:

Our preferred explanation...We understand voting as a rational act, given that a voter is voting to benefit not just himself or herself, but also the country (or the world) at large. (This "social" motivation is in fact consistent with opinion polls, which find, for example, that voting decisions are better predicted by views on the economy as a whole than by personal financial situations.)

On the other hand, there are some who argue that its just bad math to assume your vote won't make a difference, such as Jordan Ellenberg who writes for Slate.com.

Despite all of this discussion of the rational voter paradox, economists always seem willing to provide their opinions despite the often low probability return. [AF]