There is only an infinitesmal chance that any one vote will be decisive. So individual voters have strong incentives to remain ignorant. But not every form of rational behavior is morally defensible. Sometimes, rational individual behavior leads to terrible collective outcomes. Consider the case of air pollution, where individuals might rationally choose not to limit their emission of dangerous pollutants because any one person’s behavior has only a tiny effect on overall air quality in the area.
Though she later states that she does not believe citizens have a "duty" to vote, her analogy suggests by implication that "not voting " is the same as "polluting" or rather an individual not voting is a net negative on society.
However let me put forth my own analogy for not voting by rewording hers: There is only an infinitesimal chance that any one vote will be decisive. So individual voters have strong incentives to remain ignorant. But not every form of rational behavior is morally defensible. Sometimes, rational individual behavior leads to terrible collective outcomes. Consider the case of the Powerball or Mega Millions lottery, where individuals might rationally choose not to buy tickets because any one's lottery ticket has only the tiniest chance of being a jackpot winner.
But you see in my case, the argument is the flip. She thinks you should vote, just like you should limit personal air pollution. I think you shouldn't play the lottery because it is a "tax on the poor" ergo you shouldn't vote for one or the other bad candidate. The lottery is legitimized by the hordes of losers (I mean that in the nicest way) that play again and again, despite losing every single time. Similarly, the American voting system is legitimized by the hordes of people who line up to vote. And yet, no one tells you that you must play the lottery. If anything, the opposite is suggested...that playing the lottery might be fun, but almost certainly is an epic waste of your disposable income (and an especially bad retirement plan). But when my vote for President will be one of millions, and will have basically no effect on the election (especially when my vote is decoupled through the electoral college process), and I don't feel that either of the candidates are especially appealing...all my vote does is legitimize the process. It does not affect the outcome. And like the lottery ticket, it almost certainly does not benefit me.
The doubly-absurd part of this process is the implication by American culture that somehow I must feel good about voting, or worse - bad about not voting. Yet, consider the case for many moderates in America. Both parties continue to put forth polarized candidates, and especially the GOP is putting forth a bevy of hard-right (or even Tea Party) candidates. Maybe the left isn't as bad...because they're really not leftists anymore...but nevertheless, you end up with two candidates (and only two) that appear at opposite ends of the spectrum. Though filled with a feeling that "none of these croney-loving blowhards represent my rational, compromise-adept view" moderates are told by everyone that they have a "duty" to vote.
That was where I was this past November. Faced with left and right candidates who were, by my opinion, pandering, party-following ignoramuses, I did not vote. And boy, did I catch flak for it! But voting would have been, in my mind, like throwing a couple bucks at a Powerball ticket: statistically infinitesimal chance that I'd end up a winner. "Vote for a third-party candidate then," you say? Buy a Powerball ticket and throw it in the garbage?
No, the only way I could derive any personal benefit AT ALL from the election was to not waste my time driving to the polls. Too often, the implication is that non-voting is a byproduct of ignorance. But I think the real problem is that as people become well-informed of candidates, they realize that they are voting in a lose-lose election.
_
0 comments:
Post a Comment