election demographics

[Kevin Quinn]

At 07:28 PM 11/9/00 -0500, you wrote:
>> >>  If you lived in Florida, I would say that your *individual* vote was
>> >>  *very* *very* substantial.
>
>> >On the contrary, before the votes are counted, one has only
>> >a certain probability of the election being decided by one's
>> >vote.  It is very, very low, events in Florida notwithstanding.
>> >If one pretends to rationality, one must find another reason
>> >for voting than its significance in deciding large elections.
>
>Brad DeLong:
>> If one is an anomic, isolated, Hobbesian individual, you are right.
>> 
>> You may be. But I'm not.
>
>I'd like to see a rational, materialistic demonstration of
>that.  Short of some kind of electoral Quantum Mechanics, it
>seems that one's beliefs about one's vote wouldn't change
>its effects on the outcome of an election like the one we're
>discussing.
>

Gordon: you've hit the nail on the head. I don't think that what we do when
we govern ourselves in accordance with norms can be explained
naturalistically. But it seems to be something we do. In particular the
activity of science is such a norm-governed activity. I don't think it
requires supernatural explanations, but it requires transcendental (in
Kant's sense) explanations. Not all rational explanation is materialistic. 


>