>>Yes. I just got through teaching an Intro to Economics class. I told them
>>that the majority of economists work with models of human beings that say
>>they will not vote. I told them to make sure they did. (-;
>
>But, as Alberto Alesina once said, in modern economics-of-politics
>you are *forbidden* to ask why people vote--even though it has only
>an infinitesimal chance of affecting their lives and spends time that
>could be spent doing other things.
Right: this is the worm in the apple of rational choice political science. And these people are the gate-keepers in that discipline, for heaven's sake!
>
>Thus, Alberto says, if you want to get published in the APSR, you
>have to (a) assume people have a direct utility taste for voting, yet
>(b) assume also that when they do vote, they think "gosh darn it! I
>know that it's silly for me to be here, but now that I'm here I'll
>vote my narrowly-defined individualistic self interest!"
I hold no brief for rational choice theory, but I can imagine that someone who really knows what it means--say Becker or Stiglitz--would be appalled at the "direct utility taste for voting" nonsense as weaselly ad-hocery. Have they said as much?
>
>You're not allowed to wonder whether the taste for voting might also
>be a taste for voting for your perception of the general will...
>
Rational choice theorists consider it a great mystery that people engage in collective action. They have been hard at work for ages trying to convert the lead of individual self seeking into the gold of collective action: they are the New Alchemists.
Kevin Quinn
PS: What the heck is going on in this election: turnout here in Ohio, and other places I'm told, is huge. Anybody have any insight?