Why people don't vote
The 1996 election will be
remembered for three important statistics: 1) a Democrat won a second term
for the presidency (first time since FDR); 2) for the first time in the
20th Century, Republicans maintained control of the House and Senate for
two consecutive terms; and 3) it was the lowest voter turnout in American
history - approximately 49 percent.
For the first two, I would agree they are important events.
But for the 49% voter turnout, I say: Big deal! Let me elaborate.
This year an important book accomplished a rather unusual
achievement. Anthony Downs's An Economic Theory of Democracy - published
in 1957 - became the most cited book in the discipline of political science.
Think about this now: In the span of 40 years, a book written by an economist
(Downs is an economist) is cited more often than any other "political"
book (or article for that matter) written by a political scientist. More
than de Tocqueville's Democracy in America ... more than Woodrow
Wilson's Congressional Government ... more than Charles Beard's An
Economic Interpretation of the Constitution ... heck, even more than
The Federalist Papers.
Why would an economist's dissertation be so widely cited
and read? Simple. An Economic Theory of Democracy explains - in accurate,
economic terms - what hundreds of political philosopher could not: why people
vote ... or don't vote in a democracy.
But it is more than just an academic treatise on democracy.
What Downs explains goes against everything you've ever heard from liberal
elites, media pontificators, and even your favorite school teacher. And
what you've been hearing (more like brainwashed) is: YOU MUST VOTE!
You hear it a million times come election season: "If
you don't vote, you're un-American ... you don't deserve to complain about
government ... our forefathers died for the right to vote ..."
The morons who exclaim such nonsense, need to get a few
things straight. For starters, many people who don't vote are actually exercising
a democratic principle known in intelligent circles as "the freedom
of speech." People who don't vote sometimes will tell you that their
abstinence from the voting booths is a form of protest. Besides, voting
isn't the only element of a democracy. There are other things people do
(other than voting) that allow them to participate in a democracy - like
abiding by democratically enacted laws.
I hate to draw this out, but concerning our forefathers
and their fight for a right to vote, well, it is not exactly accurate history.
The main reason the American colonies rebelled against England was due to
King George's usurpation of legislative powers - a violation of the separation
of powers doctrine. If you don't believe that, read The Declaration of Independence.
Jefferson gives a long litany of grievances against King George... not Parliament.
And even when the colonies won independence, the newly
formed nation prohibited 2/3 of the populace from voting. Women, blacks,
and non-propertied (poor) white males were disenfranchised. So why do so
many of the self-righteous cite "the forefathers" ... when voting
began as a right for uppity white males?
(If these people, who are complaining about low voter
turnout, would simply cite the civil rights movement ... and the deaths
that occurred in that period - instead of the forefathers - they might have
a more persuasive case.)
One woman - on election night - even told me that America
should have a law forcing people to vote! What a frightening proposition.
I'm reminded of Rousseau's Social Contract. In
his argument about the "General Will," Rousseau claims that every
"rational" person would want to be a part his community - exercising
pure democracy and being truly free. A critic of the Social Contract
challenge Rousseau with this: What if a person doesn't want to be a part
of your social contract? In which Rousseau replied: "We will have to
force him to be free!"
Hollywood herrings
You see, people like Barbara Streisand and Madonna think
that people who don't vote are some how apathetic buffoons. But that's not
the case ... and Downs proves as much.
According to Downs, people who do not vote, don't vote
on the basis of a rational, economic decision. The pin that holds Downs's
theory together is the economic phenomena known as the "free rider."
In a free rider, a person receives a benefit without absorbing the cost
of receiving the benefit.
For example, lets say my neighborhood is collecting funds
for a parade. My neighborhood is fairly large, so I know they'll get enough
(without my money) to pay for the parade. Why would I contribute money (a
cost) to enjoy a parade (a benefit) that I can watch regardless if I pay
or don't pay? Strictly speaking, a person acting rationally wants to maximize
benefits at a minimal cost ... at no cost if possible.
Well, as Downs argues, the same logic applies to voting.
A person who wants to make a "rational decision" in a vote would
absorb substantial costs. Namely, reading "everything" about the
issues and candidates ... attending debates, etc. After reading everything,
a fully informed person could then vote rationally.
But why do that? Especially when polls tell you who will
most likely win. For instance, in October, Clinton held a strong 15-point
lead. So why would a Clinton supporter - acting rationally - go to the polls
knowing his vote really wouldn't make a difference? He'll receive the benefit
without absorbing the cost of voting. Well, the answer is: Some people have
different values when it comes to democracy. They view voting as their civic
duty ... regardless of the outcome. That's perfectly valid. But so is the
person who doesn't vote.
How does Downs's theory explain the 1996 presidential
election? Easily. Polls had a major effect on voting turnout. For 6 months,
every major poll had Clinton leading Dole anywhere from 12 to 20 points.
This influenced people coming to the voting booth ... namely, it influenced
them to stay home. Clinton supporters knew Clinton would win ... so why
vote? Dole supporters knew Dole would lose ... so why waste the time.
Besides, even if 100% of the voting population voted,
I guarantee the results would reflect exactly the same returns reflected
in the 49% turnout.
My recommendations for people like Babs, Madonna, Ted
Danson, Alec Baldwin et al.: Stick to what you do best, entertainment. After
all, this isn't amateur night at the debate club.
The three-headed monster
Last week I mentioned Arrow's Impossibility Theorem ...
it explains the futility of a three-way race. Without getting bogged down
with the theory, let me give it to you in a nutshell. Three major candidates
are running for president: Clinton, Dole, and Perot.
Now, without ties, there are only 6 possible combinations
of support:
1) Clinton, Dole, Perot 2) Clinton, Perot, Dole 3) Dole, Clinton, Perot 4) Dole, Perot, Clinton 5) Perot, Dole, Clinton 6) Perot, Clinton, Dole
But there are only three sets
of voters: Those who voted for Clinton, those who voted for Dole, and those
who voted for Perot. Here are their preferences:
Clinton voters: 1) Clinton 2) Dole 3) Perot Dole voters: 1) Dole 2) Perot 3) Clinton Perot voters: 1) Perot 2) Dole 3) Clinton
In this race, Clinton loses
2/3 of the time. Dole and Perot duke it out for the majority. In a straight-up
vote, whoever gets the popular vote wins ... which means the two losers
should form a coalition to maximize votes.
Let's look at the first combination as it really appeared
in the 1996 elections:
Clinton: 49% Dole: 41% Perot: 8%
In a democracy, majorities
rule the day. This election had no majority. Clinton won because he got
more of the popular vote ... but not the majority. Because most of the Perot
voters had Dole as their second choice, an election without Perot changes
the dynamics of the election, dramatically. It now becomes a dead even race
with Dole and Clinton running neck-and-neck.