Value is subjective. Some people value casting a ballot. Therefore individual voting is not meaningless for those individuals.
Aggregate voting determines political outcomes. Therefore aggregate voting is not meaningless.
I've been battling both a bad cold and intense homework over the past few days, but wanted to finally respond to Ali's latest posts in our voting debate. (I'll post links to the debate series at the bottom of this post.)
To summarize, Ali has discovered from studying public choice that an individual voting has an infinitesimally small chance of changing the outcome of a mass election. (Typically smaller than the chance of winning the lottery.) Having discovered this, Ali is now of the opinion that voting (from a general, holistic perspective) is meaningless. Ali and I have no disagreement about the mathematical probability of an individual voter swaying an election. We disagree a great deal on the meaningfulness of voting.
Ali writes:...don’t read this as a prescription either a) not to vote, or b) agitate against democracy =P However, caution is all: I respect received wisdom, but I respect learned wisdom more, and my study of Public Choice suggests to me both that i) voting is useless, and ii) democracy is overrated.
A DROP OF WATER VS. A FLOOD
Concluding "voting is meaningless" just because a single vote doesn't determine political outcomes is the equivalent of saying floods don't matter because a single drop of water won't have any impact.
Just as a single drop of water doesn't matter for maintaining a human life, in aggregate, many drops of water can cause floods, make tsunami's, sustain crops, and prevent someone from dying of thirst. Just because a single vote doesn't determine an election, doesn't mean the voting of the citizenry is unimportant, meaningless, or ineffectual.
To draw on this analogy, democracy (and voting) matter because politicians fear "the Flood". In a well functioning democracy, "The Flood" puts leaders into power and takes them out. The fear of "The Flood" taking them out of power is an important feedback mechanism that constrains (although doesn't eliminate) corruption and helps prevent politicians from engaging in activities that are extremely unpopular with the citizenry.
THE FLOOD OF DEMOCRACY
I believe democracy is extremely valuable for national well-being. Without a removal mechanism, politicians would be far less restrained in doing what's good for themselves at the expense of the citizenry of their nation. The broader the voting support they need to gain power, the more eyes will scrutinize their behavior and the more constrained their political actions have to be. It is hard for them to take actions that are not broadly supported by the citizens of the region they represent.
Ali writes:
Swing voters matter to the outcome, but they are, by definition marginal. If politicians pay attention to a tiny sliver of the population, that’s a mark against, not for the system.
(This comment is a bit paradoxical because it seems that on the one hand, Ali is arguing that voting is meaningless because individual votes don't matter and, on the other hand, he is saying democracy is bad because it places too much power into the hands of too few voters...)
Taking the American national electoral system as an example, aspects of our system such as the electoral college and presidential primaries at first blush may seem wasteful and antiquated. A deeper analysis, however, shows how they both make it necessary for presidential candidates to spend a lot of time and energy building consensus support throughout a large portion of America if they want any hope of gaining office. It also exposes the politician to public scrutiny across the nation and makes him or her more known to people. It dilutes the power of states with large populations, requiring politicians to also focus on the desires of smaller states as well. This dilution of individual state power is one more aspect of a balance of powers and part of the genius of the American system. It also forces presidential candidates to pay attention to many marginal voters throughout society and constantly adjust and reform their campaign to accommodate as many as needed to win. To draw on the flood analogy again, the American system requires that "The Flood" to stem from many sources around the country rather than making the system vulnerable to "leaks" in a few key regions.
Ali writes:
...politicians can appeal to voters, and when voters vote, the politician who has appealed to the most voters wins. Yes. So?
To think about why this matters, simply think about the converse -- a politician being able to get into power despite overwhelming, widespread opposition. Does that sound like a better or more stable system? One of the key aspects of democracy and the process described above is that it helps build cohesion and consensus among members of society on political issues and acceptance of political leaders.
THE CULTURE OF VOTING
Ali (who is Pakistani) writes:
Pakistan isn’t a functional democracy, but the obsession with the ballot [in the US] is not simply intriguing, it undercuts the best predictions of economics: voting is a public good, why do we observe it? This debate is an attempt to understand the dynamics better.
A few observations on the "culture of voting" in America:
- Any political system whose outcome hinges on the single vote of a citizen is highly unstable. The fact that a single vote doesn't typically determine a political outcome is "not a bug, but a feature" of democracy.
- Having a miniscule chance of swaying an election is an argument against voting only if:
- You expected your vote to be the determining one in the election.
- The value of your time is so incredibly high that the small amount required for you to vote vastly outweighs whatever other benefits (if any) you derive from voting.
- Voting for your favorite candidate or political party is no more irrational than spending time going to game and cheering for your favorite team to win. Only in the case of voting, the team that wins may determine the direction of your city, state, or country.
- There are many social and psychic benefits to voting.
- In America, there is a strong feeling that we show our appreciation to our country and to men and women who fought and died to give us the right to vote by going to the polls. This gives people a strong sense of satisfaction from voting that is more than worth the cost they bear to vote. (A cost which is far less than many economists often portray it being.)
- If you believe that democracy is a good thing, I would posit this is a good belief to foster in society because it increases participation in and acceptance of voting.
- Social disapprobation of non-voters also stems from this view and may be an emergent custom that helps support voting behavior.
- Many citizens view it as their "duty" to vote. This may be another emergent social custom that helps preserve democracy as a stable system by increasing the personal benefit derived from going to the polls.
- Most people don't expect their ballot to be the decisive ballot cast in any given election. They vote anyway. The personal satisfaction of fulfilling a civic duty and the social benefits of voting will likely outweigh most economic cost-benefits arguments about not voting for most people.
- Value is subjective. Some people value casting a ballot. Therefore individual voting is not meaningless for those individuals.
- Aggregate voting determines political outcomes. Therefore aggregate voting is not meaningless.
INFORMATION CASCADES VS. THE FOURTH ESTATE
Ali mentions discusses how uninformed voters are and the potential problem of information cascades. An added benefit of the dispersed nature of the American electoral system and slowness of presidential campaigns is that it subjects candidates running for the most important political offices into the greatest public scrutiny. Free speech and free press are vital aspects of this system. There is reason that the press is often referred to as the "fourth estate".
With the media and competing political parties trying to uncover as much dirt on candidates as possible, it reduces the probability of important information not reaching voters prior to an election. I am far more concerned about the ramifications of information cascades in developing countries that lack free speech, free press, and less educated citizens.
Another way democracies handle reduced information is by over-punishing politicians when indiscretion is discovered.
ALTERNATIVES TO DEMOCRACY?
Ali mentions that alternatives to democracy "might exist", but doesn't propose any others. He also says history is replete with other systems of government that have persisted for centuries. First, I would say that until I hear what this "mysterious hypothetical" political system is, I will assume it does not exist. Talking about it in the abstract is merely meaningless hand-waving. I'm happy to discuss the tenability of alternative systems but need to hear it described before I can gauge if it is better than democracy. Second, I would argue that other political systems have indeed existed in the past and most of them have fallen by the wayside, many times to various forms of democracy. The first nations to develop were democracies and I would posit that democracy is a necessary (although not sufficient) condition for leading economic growth.
Question: Are there any examples of countries that have flourished that either A) were democracies, B) bordered democracies that created a threat of a mass exodus of people emigrating out of their country if policies became too bad, or C) were built upon political, economic, and/or technological innovations that were "spill-overs" from existing democracies?
LEMMINGS!
Lastly, in his last post on this topic, Ali asked if I knew what a lemming was. Indeed I do. What concerns me is that Ali may be following others who are jumping over a cliff in their dismissal of and failure to appreciate the positive aspects of democracy.
See our previous posts in this debate (in chronological order):
No comments:
Post a Comment