Why Vote? Why not?
By now, late November 7th, 2006 the voters in United States have either voted or not, while in a week the voters in Ontario will vote in municipal elections.
At this time, the usual "paradox" of voting is trotted for examination - why bother to vote, if the chances of it making a difference are marginal?
This particular problem is misguided, but not primarily for the interesting suggestions over at Marginal Revolution: Should you vote?
Voting is an act of coordination. Like stopping at red lights, which ought not require a separate calculation for each and every red light. We see the value of the coordination of individuals having signals when to stop and when to go. Having acquired that knowledge, we also realize that there is no upside to calculating for each red light whether we should "run it" or not. Overly rational individuals create gridlock by making the calculation each and every time when faced with a red light - should I run it and try to make it through the intersection? Invariably, most of these individual calculations are wrong and gridlock ensues.
Voter apathy may result from similar considerations. But, voting is an primarily an act of symbolic coordination and the individual does not calculate each voting opportunity whether or not he or she is making a difference. There is nothing irrational about this meta decision. It is not an act of calculation, despite what some critics of the practice urge.
We already have enough gridlock in Toronto, we don't need to stop to calculate if our vote would make a difference. We just need, collectively, to make difference.
Vote. Don't calculate.
Technorati Tags: marginal revolution, rational individuals, coordination, voting, municipal elections, paradox
