Paradox of voting


Paradox of voting

The paradox of voting, also called Downs paradox, is that for a rational, self-interested voter the costs of voting will normally exceed the expected benefits. Because the chance of exercising the pivotal vote (i.e. in case of a tied election) is tiny compared to any realistic estimate of the private individual benefits of the different possible outcomes, the expected benefits of voting are less than the costs. The fact that people do vote is a problem for public choice theory, first observed by Anthony Downs.[1]

Responses

Alternative responses modify the postulate of egoistic rationality in various ways. For example, Brennan and Lomasky suggest that voters derive 'expressive' benefits from supporting particular candidates. However, this implies that voting choices are unlikely to reflect the self-interest of voters, as is normally assumed in public choice theory; that is, rational behavior is restricted to the instrumental as opposed to the intrinsic value of actions.

Some have hypothesized that voting is linked genetically with evolved behaviors such as cooperation. One study of identical and fraternal twins' voting patterns concluded that 60% of differences in turnout among twins can be accounted for by genetics, but another interpretation of this study put the figure at 40%.[2]

Another suggestion is that voters are rational but not fully egoistic. In this view voters have some altruism, and perceive a benefit if others (or perhaps only others like them) are benefited. They care about others, even if they care about themselves more. Since an election affects many others, it could still be rational to cast a vote with only a small chance of affecting the outcome. This view makes testable predictions: that close elections will see higher turnout, and that a candidate who made a secret promise to pay a given voter if they win would sway that voter's vote less in large and/or important elections than in small and/or unimportant ones.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Downs, A. (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy, Harper and Row, N.Y., 1957.
  2. ^ Scientific American (2007-10-14). "The Genetics of Politics: Scientific American". Sciam.com. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=5&articleID=8BD37481-E7F2-99DF-34D1A46C2CB1775E. Retrieved 2010-10-11. 

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Voting paradox — This article is about the arguably irrational results that can arise in a collective choice among three or more alternatives. For the contention that an individual s vote will probably not affect the outcome, see Paradox of voting. The voting… …   Wikipedia

  • Voting — Vote redirects here. For the Finno Ugric people, see Votes …   Wikipedia

  • Voting system — For other uses, see Voting system (disambiguation). Part of the Politics series Electoral methods …   Wikipedia

  • Paradox — For other uses, see Paradox (disambiguation). Further information: List of paradoxes A paradox is a seemingly true statement or group of statements that lead to a contradiction or a situation which seems to defy logic or intuition. Typically,… …   Wikipedia

  • Condorcet-Paradox — Das Condorcet Paradoxon (auch „Problem der zyklischen Mehrheiten“, „Arrow s Paradox“ oder „paradox of voting“ genannt) ist ein nach Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, Marquis de Condorcet benanntes Paradoxon bei Wahlverfahren, das sich vor allem …   Deutsch Wikipedia

  • Comparison of instant runoff voting to other voting systems — This article is a comparison of various voting systems with Instant runoff voting (IRV), also called the Alternative Vote , preferential voting and ranked choice voting. Contents 1 Categories 2 Voting system criteria 3 Voting system results …   Wikipedia

  • Apportionment paradox — An apportionment paradox exists when the rules for apportionment in a political system produce results which are unexpected or seem to violate common sense. To apportion is to divide into parts according to some rule, the rule typically being one …   Wikipedia

  • Instant-runoff voting — Example instant runoff voting ballot …   Wikipedia

  • Proxy voting — Part of the Politics series Electoral methods Single winner …   Wikipedia

  • Arrow paradox (disambiguation) — Arrow paradox may mean: *Zeno s paradox about infinity and the movement of an arrow *Kenneth Arrow s impossibility theorem about social choice and voting *Kenneth Arrow s fundamental paradox of information: its value for the purchaser is not… …   Wikipedia


Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”

We are using cookies for the best presentation of our site. Continuing to use this site, you agree with this.