>Actually, this is a fundamental puzzle in political
>science. If the costs of voting are more than trivial
>(and they ofen are -- campaigning in Ohio in 2004 I
>saw people stand for hours waiting to vote) and the
>likihood that voting will have any effect is
>negligible, which is certainly true, marginally
>speaking, only the last vote that tips the balance
>actually counts, why do presumptively rational people
>bother?
>
>
>
>
Simple answer: Despite the armchair speculation of many philosophers and
economists, people aren't rational utilitarians. This view of human
beings as "utility maximizers" has been refuted in literally hundreds of
well-controlled psychological studies. --Thus the voting example is
only a puzzle if try to understand it using a dubious theory of human
behavior.
Miles