[lbo-talk] The "Rational" Voter

[Michael McIntyre]

> Here's the supreme irony.  Those who won't vote for Kucinich
> because they think he can't win justify that decision on the
> grounds of "not throwing your vote away," "supporting someone with
> a chance to win," or "casting an effective vote."  All of these
> justifications reject voting as an expressive act ("the ballot as a
> place to make a statement") in favor of voting as a causally
> efficacious act.  But a moment's reflection will reveal that one's
> individual vote has zero causal effect.  Not only is it
> extraordinarily unlikely that an election will be decided by one
> vote, but given the uncertainties of any vote-counting mechanism,
> one's vote is necessarily within the statistical margin of vote-
> counting error.  It is therefore IRRATIONAL to vote in order to
> have an effect, an a fortiori irrational to vote (on grounds of
> causal efficacy) for a candidate who has a chance rather than a
> candidate who does not.  Ironically, those who invoke instrumental
> rationality as the reason for voting as they do are the most
> deluded of all.  The argument for not voting is very strong.  The
> argument for voting as an expressive act is much weaker, though
> perhaps viable.  But no one should vote because they think their
> vote makes a difference, and no one should vote under the sway of
> the flawed argument that voting for one candidate has an effect
> while voting for another does not.
>

I don't think this is true if you can reasonably expect like-minded
others to do the same.

Ted

Nope, Ted, this doesn't rescue the instrumental rationality  
argument.  If I can reasonably expect like-minded others to do the  
same (whatever "the same" is), then they will do that whether or not  
I show up at the polling place.  Conversely, if I expect like-minded  
others to do differently, then what I do of do not do at the polling  
place will not affect their actions either.  One vote really is just  
one vote.

Michael McIntyre