Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (52960)	7/14/2002 1:55:19 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Here's something outside the box I came across in my travels today. Tucson, Arizona Sunday, 14 July 2002 Make voting compulsory By William Mishler SPECIAL TO THE ARIZONA DAILY STAR An Arizona Daily Star editorial on July 7 ridiculed me for not voting ("One man, no vote"). I explained to a Star reporter why voting is not rational, to which the editorial staff responded that, "a little learning is a dangerous thing," and claimed there are "no good reasons" not to vote. The idea that voting is not rational has been a mainstay of the social sciences since the 1940s. Its most prominent advocate is conservative economist James Buchanan, who won the 1986 Nobel Prize for this dangerous "little bit of learning." Unfortunately, voting in a large society makes about as much sense for any individual as giving money to the government to reduce the national debt. There never has been a presidential election in the United States decided by a single vote. Nor has one vote ever determined a statewide election. Voting imposes costs, however. It takes time to vote and to acquire information necessary to vote responsibly. Since my vote has no effect, I am better off doing more productive things, such as writing my legislator, working overtime or explaining elementary politics to the Star editors. But wouldn't democracy be threatened if everyone thought this way? Of course it would, and therein lies the problem. Voting is one of a variety of what social scientists call collective action problems. It is vital to society that citizens do many things as a group that are not rational for them to do individually. Paying the national debt is one. Providing national defense is another. Voting is a third. Why, then, do so many people vote? Voting is not rational only if one votes in order to influence election outcomes. If citizens vote because it feels good - and many say it does - then voting, for them, is rational. I voted for years because I enjoyed being "involved," if only symbolically. I stopped when I found better things to do than to make symbolic gestures. Both were rational decisions. Voting could be made rational for virtually all citizens if the government provided appropriate incentives. There are two solutions to collective action problems, bribery and coercion. Society can pay people to contribute to collective goods, or it can force them to contribute under penalty of law. Americans speak of our volunteer army, but most soldiers "volunteer" because the government pays them. Even money is not enough of an incentive in wartime, however, so the government drafts citizens and jails them if they refuse. Unfortunately, the United States provides only weak incentives to vote. The Star editorial shaming me is a classic, if clumsy, example. Because incentives for voting are so weak and registration costs are so high, only about 50 percent of voting age citizens participate in presidential elections, and only about 10 percent vote in local elections. The Star failed to mention that I advocate compulsory voting laws requiring people to vote or pay a fine. Compulsory voting not only would ensure that everyone votes, it would reduce negative advertising and the cost of campaigns. Research shows that political advertising rarely influences citizens' voting preferences, but it does affect voter turnout. Candidates use negative advertising to alienate opponents' supporters to persuade them not to vote, thus biasing election outcomes. If everyone were required to vote, fewer incentives would exist for advertising - especially negative advertising - thus reducing bias and the need for the millions of advertising dollars. I do not discourage others from voting. I caution students to make up their own minds but to be clear about the reasons behind their decisions. Mother taught me long ago that "just because everybody else jumps off the bridge doesn't mean that you have to do so, too." Besides, I belong to the rational majority of Americans who choose not to vote. Irrespective of the Star's heavy-handed and uninformed propaganda, I will continue to support this rational majority and will also continue advocating government policies, such as compulsory voting, that would make voting rational for all Americans - including me. * William Mishler is a professor and the head of the department of political science at the University of Arizona.