Is it rational to vote? If it is, why do some people not vote? If it is not, why do some people vote?

University Degree Social studies

Student number: 022243766

BA Politics: Comparative Politics essay

27/11/02

3. Is it rational to vote? If it is, why do some people not vote? If it is not, why do some people vote?

In established democracies it is a ‘norm’ to vote. People have the choice in whether they wish to participate or not. It would be right to say that from a rational point of view that it is ‘irrational’ to vote but then that does not explain why so many do still vote. If you look at authoritarian regimes by contrast participation is diminished if not by quality but by quantity. In my essay I will be discussing if it is rational to vote which I believe it is not and will be discussing why so many still vote. Are these people irrational? I would be analysing specifically the rational point of view, structural and cultural point of view.

In the 1950s, Anthony Downs argued that analysing politics form a rational point of view might provide insight about voting behaviour. Downs began with the assumption that the political system is driven by individuals acting to pursue their own interests. He used the cost/benefit approach to explain why it may not always be rational to vote. He suggested that people might not vote because the cost of voting outweighs the benefits involved. By cost Downs was referring to the following, where the individual has to go somewhere and register, one has to spend time learning about the proposed policies of the candidates on the ballot. But more generally one has to schedule their day around the election. From a rationalist point of view, for every hour that you are doing this, you could have been doing something more fun, which would benefit the individual. The costs of becoming informed are the most significant because candidates are often elusive and issues can be highly complex. Downs further argued that the benefits received from voting are of the most part, negligible. If a voter does not see much difference between candidates, or if a voter feels the chances are small that his/her vote will not change the outcome of the election, then the effect of his/her vote is minimal.

From a rational point of view it would therefore be perceived as ‘irrational to vote’. As the cost of voting outweighs the benefit. The individual will not be gaining directly from their vote; it is more costly for the individual to vote than to gain from the vote. However voting is not the only form of political participation. Citizens engage in a number of political activities other than voting. For example writing letters to their local MP, or calling their representatives or attending local political meetings. In these instances the citizen chooses the issues to be involved in as they are gaining more directly than simply going to the ballet box. Downs believed that if no one voted, the political system would ultimately fail. Therefore, he thought that some electors voted in order to ensure the continuity of democracy; or as Riker and Ordeshook stated, to perform one’s duty as a citizen.

While the perspective is helpful, it still does not address the question directly. Is voting rational or not? If it is not rational to vote, which we have identified then why, do half of the eligible voters still turn out to elections? This would mean these individuals are ‘irrational’? The fact is Downs “calculations” about voting are overly simplistic. Voters consider factors other than the direct impact of their votes when they go to the ballet box. For example most citizens recognise that voting is essential component of democracy. Citizens may conclude that even if their vote is not ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

While the perspective is helpful, it still does not address the question directly. Is voting rational or not? If it is not rational to vote, which we have identified then why, do half of the eligible voters still turn out to elections? This would mean these individuals are ‘irrational’? The fact is Downs “calculations” about voting are overly simplistic. Voters consider factors other than the direct impact of their votes when they go to the ballet box. For example most citizens recognise that voting is essential component of democracy. Citizens may conclude that even if their vote is not likely to change the outcome of an election, it is important to vote to show their support for the political process and the political system. Indeed, a system of government by the people is legitimate only to the extent that people participate. The fewer the number of people that participate, the less legitimate the system of government becomes. Downs assessment does not account for the many instances in which a single vote or a handful of votes have been decisive in electoral contests. In popular elections, those in which voters select political leaders, there have been several narrow margins of victory of the most notable is; in 1876, one vote in the electoral college gave Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency of the United States. The rational calculus model shows that it is always irrational for an individual to vote in a large election where two parties are competing for office.

Grofman demonstrated voting is in fact a rational thing to do from the utility perspective as individual can achieve some personal though not material need. Many utilitarian explanations suggest that the role of groups in elections and the consumption benefits they bring make voting rational. Another reason for voting for you candidate, you get the policies you prefer, but this is not really the case. Your candidate might not win. Also your candidate may not even support the policies that were promised during the campaign. As well as this your candidate might support the policies as promised but might not get them passed as legislations. And lastly the chances of your vote that would put your candidate in office would be zero.

Politics in many ways is like a spectator sport, with all the excitement and drama of football or cricket. Voting maybe enjoyable in the same way as watching and cheering on a favourite football team is. Indeed voting against a politician one does not like is enjoyable, even if it does not result in his defeat. Another explanation for voting is that people have a sense of public duty; as Riker and Ordeshook stated that individual vote as they are fulfilling ones sense of civic duty makes an individual feel good. . They want to be good citizens and voting may seem important regardless of its effect, the act itself of voting itself can be important as a symbolic act. One other argument, which may over estimate the importance of vote, is the probability that an individual believes that it was their vote in the ballet box that decided the final outcome of the votes. Investing in a good reputation by voting for a certain political party may be another explanation.

Brunk (1980) believes that people vote because they are mislead by false information about the utility gained from voting. This means the more people understand that voting is ‘irrational’ the voting turnout will decline. This may be a good argument for the low turnouts for example in Britain, which is falling dramatically over the past general election years. Does this primarily mean that people have become aware that voting is ‘irrational’? Or is it that they just believe there vote does not count? Some suggest that low turnout reflects satisfaction with the status quo is therefore a good thing. Prothro and Grigg concluded that apathy might be “functional” for democracy.

Even in countries, which are democratic, they differ in numbers of votes. Because of political culture as Robert Jackman said. That is ‘they differ in terms of their citizens’ “subjective orientation to politics”. Some countries are said to have more participatory cultures than others. In countries where cultures are more participatory, citizens are more likely to participate and they ‘exhibit greater political satisfaction with pride in their institutions and are generally more efficacious”. For example in post communist democracy. This is because democracy is their highest order goal, a goal adapted for a variety of reasons, which could be characterised as cultural ideology. Also a desire to fulfil individual material interest, through the ballet. In this sense it would be rational to vote as one vote to improves ones own self-being. Also socialisation in communist system in which voting is required of all citizens. This theory fits into the cultural and the rational view of voting. It would be rational to vote if it was the current culture.

Powell includes a measure of the linkage between social groups and political parties. This variable is like a measure of class voting; accept that it can reflect occupation, religion. However this is hard to interpret because the measure of groups in each country and because it does not include all potentially relevant groups. In this line of thought cultures that foster such participatory values enhance voting turnouts. The cultural explanation of turnout draws attention to the fact that the way we account for turnout bears on the meaning, we place on voting itself. For example the low turnout in US elections has been cast in terms of values: low rates of participation are seen to reflect apathy or alienation and it is commonly believe that higher turnout rates would indicate a broader public satisfaction with political life. At the same time it is said that low participation may testify to satisfaction, and that high turnout is undesirable. The distinctive feature in both is the stress on values.

The alternative on cultural view is explanation to institutional factors. The US federal level, turnout in gubernatorial elections has been influenced by factors such as electoral law and the nature of political competition. Powell (1986) has shown that while US citizens seem to be highly positively disposed toward participation voter turnouts is much lower in the US than other democracies which he stated was due to the US legal and institutional environment. Voter turnout should respond to institutional patterns makes good intuitive sense. As Jackman stated in his essay his main purposes was to demonstrate that different institutional arrangements have a major and predictable impact on national rates of voter turnouts. As Jackman wrote that when there are incentives for candidates and parties to mobilise more voters this will increase turnout. He also believed that institutional arrangements influence the degree to which potential voters think their vote will make a difference both to the election outcome itself and to the subsequent formation of government.

In countries where there is more likely to be incentive for the individual to vote there is more likely to be a high turnout. For example in the US the federal elections are more likely to have high turnout then presidential elections. This is because the federal government remains a major provider of public goods and a major policy making arena. As Jackman stated in his essay ‘those countries where the vote seat translation is proportional have good turnouts over countries disproportional voting. On the other hand the two party systems enjoys a turnout advantage over the multi party systems’. Finally with mandatory voting laws increase turnout are high turnouts

The bases of electoral choice have varied over space and time. This would explain the low turnouts we currently see in statistics provided at the moment. Democratic mobilization has shifted from being based on social cleavages such as class and ethnicity to political mobilisation based on attachment to specific political objects. Increasingly today it has moved to cognitive mobilisation reflecting individual decisions based on knowledge of different issues for example individual values. Powell said that the percentage of the population over 34 years of age as an explanatory variable because survey evidence indicates that young citizens have lower turnouts. There is however indications that this variable have no systematic effect. As Aldwhich (1993) stated that voting is a ‘low cost activity with low benefits’. This can be identified with the media in which is provided free to individuals. There is no need large substantial cost the individual has to worry about. Therefore the cost is free and it would be rational to vote.

From the rational perspective it would be irrational to vote. Although rational choice model of turnout is incomplete and inadequate for explaining political participation in democracy. It is rational to vote in certain circumstances where the individual has incentives, especially where the individual has no costs to pay but will benefit in the long run. I personally have mixed feelings about voting as I believe one should vote especially where one has the given right to vote, living in democracy where they have the rights to vote. But I believe that once governments have come into power they are free to do as they wish but in the other hand I would rather vote and give legitimacy to a political party, which I share some views with than to vote for the BNP. To vote is based on individual the costs are low as we have free media coverage and the benefits are there for free. As has been stated in my essay, it is irrational to vote if individuals have no incentives and low turnouts occur when laws ‘prevent or discourage large groups of people to vote’. In cases where the individual encouraged or it is the present culture to vote then it would be rational to vote.

Bibliography:

Hague R., et al (2001) Comparative Government and politics, London: Macmillan (chapter 8).
Lichbach, M., Zuckerman, A.. (1997) Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture and Structure, Cambridge: Cambridge university press (chapter 5, and PP. 131-3, 141-3).
Downs, A. (1957) An economic theory of democracy, Chicago: Rand McNally
Jackman, R. (1987) ‘Political Institutions and Voter Turnout’. American Political science Review 81.2.