Hi,

How is everybody doing today? I thought I would start a new discussion to get some other opinions on the fundamental aspects of voting.

For those who are not familiar with the voting equation..

V=p*B-C

What this means is the V stands for the decision to vote, the p is the probability that your vote will break a particular tie.

You multiply the probability with the benefits of voting ( B ). Finally, you subtract the costs ( C ) of voting from the ( B ) benefits.

This equation is showing us that it is not rational to vote.

Although, the reason why we continue voting is because it is our civic duty.

What are your thoughts on this?

Well, I think that every vote counts and you can't complain if you don't even vote. If we just all stop voting, what would happen is we would have more irrational people in office along with more stupid policies trying to be passed. The chance of that would definitely increases if we just stop voting.

where did you get this equation ? Frankly ,it sounds like a bunch of BS . What exactly is the cost involved in voting besides getting off you're a$$ and going to the polling place.
By the equation given;unless I am missing something ,there is plenty of benefit to vote (the probability of getting a desired result) and very little cost.

Hi Tom!

I am glad that you responded.. I like reading your comments when I have the chance to get on here.. I thought the voting equation was well known. I learned this from my professor in a class on American Democracy that I am currently taking as an elective. I have never heard of this equation either.

When he talked about this voting equation.. he says that according to this equation it is a waste of time to vote because the probability of you as one person breaking a tie is a very minimal percent..

He says you could be losing time and money from work, if your going to go and vote..

Also, I wanted to let you know that I have not been able to get more information on the Hamilton Burr feud yet.. been busy with school and work.. but I still plan on trying to see what else I can get on this after I take my finals this week. I hope all is going well with you!

Your professor said that ? Unbelievable ! I think he made the equation up (if you can link a source I'd appreciate it ).

This represents the most cynical instincts in our system ;and if it was widely believed,it would seriously undermine the foundations of this or any democratic system.

ps Thanks for the kind words

Re:Hamilton and Burr .

Not sure one book would cover it because the feud between them went deeper than political egos.

However ,this is a good start :
Duel: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, and the Future of America by Thomas J. Fleming

Where the equation is flawed in my opinion is that the nature of voting always brings about the breaking of a tie. And that is how each vote counts. So long as 3 people are voting one of them is the tie breaker on a 2 sided issue. So the flaw lies in the question itself. As the ultimate tie breaking vote - yes chances are slim. But as a tie breaking vote - chances are high. It's a matter of building blocks. So at random anyone's vote can break a tie in the process and that is how your vote counts.

This is just a load of crap and pseudo probability theory.

The reason why we vote is basic human nature, we want to feel we can influence events and we definitely want the authority in power to agree with our point of view

I meant to tell you that the equation is from the author Anthony Downs and was in a book he wrote sometime in the 1960's I believe. Have you heard of him? He also wrote about the "issue-attention cycle".

It would call this "The Penguin Equation". It may not be rational but it can be a biological necessity.

A colony of Penguins in a blizzard have a high rate of survival. This is especially true of penguins which tend to huddle in the middle of the group. Extra body heat and protection from the wind is of great benefit.

If you are a penguin who is unlucky enough to find himself on the edges then you are in danger of exposure and death.

For some biological reason penguins in blizzard do a lot of shuffling about. So much so the majority of these birds actually get to spend some time in the middle and some time on the edges.

If penguins were rational then clearly they would do their best to avoid the edges and let the others expose themselves to the possibility of freezing to death. On this basis the benefits of not cooperating far out weigh the benefits of cooperating.

It is most fortunate for the species they are not rational.

Tut

I still question what exactly are the costs of voting here ? I get it in emerging democracies where the decision to go to the polls could be very costly ,and I applaud the courage of the people who dip their fingers in purple ink and display it proudly.
Contrast that to the US where bad weather is enough to keep people from voting . In those cases it can be said the people who don't vote get the government they deserve.

Anthony Down's credentials are impressive. However ,I have always disputed his economic left-right axis. Therefore I suspect that his perception of voting suffers from the same premises.

This is very much connected to Excon's posting about the elites and the common people. I find it insulting for him to assume that people do not have sufficient knowledge or the incentive to learn the particulars of the issues for them to make informed choices.

If indeed his claims about people having little incentive to vote, because they cannot expect to have any impact on the outcome of any given election is true ;then the democratic experiment is a failure.

I also did a quick search on the "issue-attention cycle". His claim is that that the people will only pay attention to an issue when it reaches crisis stage . Then new policy is initiated to address it and the people go back to ignoring the issues while policy makers whittle away at the changes until a new crisis emerges.

Here is his 5 step process:

Pre-problem: A problem exists, but only some experts and interest groups are alarmed.

Discovery and Enthusiasm: There is alarm and concern over a discovered environmental problem. People band together to support a solution and attack the problem.

Realization: The public starts to understand the cost and difficulty of making progress on the issue.

Decline in Interest: Because of this realization, there is a decline in public interest (and therefore media attention).

Post-problem: The issue isn’t resolved but there is less attention on it. However, the overall level of interest is higher than when the problem was discovered. This may result in small recurrences of interest.”

It is cynical but accurate in the fact that most people have better things to do than monitor the activities of an immense centralized bureaucracy on a daily basis.

I have not read his theory fully ;but I suspect his finger points to the wrong problem. It is not the nature of the electorate that is the problem. The problem is in this belief that bigger government is the cure.

When legislation gets so big that lawmakers don't have the time to read it ,and they out source the compliance to an even bigger massive bureaucracy that writes volumes of regulatory code ;often the intent of the action gets lost.

Elected officials may come and go . But the permanent government remains ,outlasting the people the voters put in place to manage them .The bigger the government the bigger the problem.