> >Because they don't vote collectively and they don't have
> >collective power. I'm assuming power and voting (meaningfully)
> >imply cognition and will.
Kevin Quinn:
> But this is the reason you were looking for above. You see yourself as part
> of a larger group--co thinkers, party, etc-- and thus your reason is that
> OUR vote can affect things. It is not individually rational, but it is
> rational for us. We act collectively by not free riding on the efforts of
> the rest.
>
> I think this *is* why we vote, as opposed to the norm-following that Witek
> suggests.
However, if the collectivity is unconscious or mystical, it's not the kind of collectivity which can exert power or meaningfully choose one thing over another. As a constrast, consider a corporation where different stake-holders may negotiate with one another to evolve a corporate will, as opposed to a church, where one joins to sign on to God's perception and will, not to exert one's own. In the former case, the participants consciously bind themselves to each other in a corporate body through a system of mutually negotiated contract-like relationships. (Other examples, for those who are allergic to capitalism, are unions, cooperatives, communes, sports teams, and tribes. The _fasces_ to which Brad refers could be supposed to refer to this mutual binding, although I'm dubious about imposing modern intuitions on ancient customs.)
As I see it, national elections in the United States are in the mystical, church-like category. Participation is rational if the participants get a good feeling out of it, but it is not an expression of collective will -- the will of the individual non-elite participant doesn't matter. However, it is my guess that elections, like much of the rest of the State apparatus, are made substitutes for actual community so in the end the participants are likely to feel cheated. Hence the constant attention to the duplicity of politicians which is at once excoriated and demanded by their electorates.