There might have been threads on this before and if there were you can delete it. But seriously is it worth it to get in your car, drive to the middle school wait in line for half an hour only to get in a booth for two seconds and leave when you know you’re only one of 150 million people that are doing this. I personally live in New York and considering the 20 million people that live in my state and the about 10 million that will vote should I vote knowing my vote won’t make a difference at all. I understand it is a free country and we should honor our right to vote but it’s not like our vote is going to matter. While maybe in a school budget vote your vote may matter but in a presidential election the chance it comes down to one vote in your state is fairly slim. So what do you guys think about this? Or should this thread be moved to Great Debate?
There is a factual answer to this, and it’s no. If you wish to vote in order to get your preferred candidate elected, it is not worth your voting if it is at any cost. The chance of being decisive is vanishingly small*, even if the election is expected to be extremely close.
Of course, if you are voting for reasons other than instrumental ones, this wouldn’t apply.
*[sub]I think I have the number floating around my office somewhere, I’ll see if I can find it.[/sub]
Conditioning the question on “at any cost” almost invites a negative answer. There are very few activities that are worth it “at any cost.” What about whether voting for president is worth it at the actual cost of voting, which is negligible?
Of course, it is still probably not worth it. After all, it is not like a national presidential election in which the number of voters runs to nine digits could ever come down to, say, a few hundred votes.
Oh, wait . . .
Just because it isn’t enough isn’t a good reason for forego the only chance we have to register our opinions in an officially binding manner. Damn right it’s worth it.
If they opened up a polling station and let me vote in it every single night, casting my ballot for bills and measures and proposals on state, federal, and local levels, I’d be there 11 nights out of 12. If they were kind and let me vote via internet connection from home, I’d cast my vote 999 times out of 1000.
When you don’t vote( and then talk about it) you indirectly could change the outcome substantially indirectly. For example, by posting things like “your one vote does absolutely nothing to the outcome” will cause a snowball effect of probably 10,000 people not to vote on our next election.
Your vote doesn’t matter. New York will always elect liberal dems no matter what you do. Downstaters!
This is from Mueller (1989) Public Choice II, p 350.
What this means is that for a risk-neutral individual, party A would have to be offering this individual policies better for that individual by $16 667 [1/.00006] than those offered by party B in order for it to be worth that individual incurring a $1 cost (including time costs, information gathering costs etc) even when the individual thinks the election is a 50/ 50 chance. When the election is not thought to be quite 50/ 50, the number increases very fast.
FYI, Oregon has a amil vote only! There are no poll booths. It’s almost like the internet, but not QUITE as handy. They also send every voter a booklet with all of the issues and peopole can buy space in this booklet to express reasons to or not to vote for each measure. Even presidential elections are held in this manner. I wouldn’t be able to vote if it weren’t for this! I’m too darn busy and have no say in my schedule!
What the hell, I’ll give you the formula:
The probability of being the decisive voter is:
P = 3e[sup]-2(N-1)(p-1/2)[sup]2[/sup][/sup] / 2 [2[symbol]p/symbol][sup]1/2[/sup]
I think that by “any cost” he means “arbitrarily small, yet greater than zero, cost” as opposed to “any arbitrarily high cost”.
Would this be a case of the fallacy of composition? Clearly, if everybody did the calculation and stayed home, then I’d benefit from voting. Right?
“Voting as a game of cat and mouse” (Mueller p351-2) 
Well kinda. But faced with the evidence of a positive turnout, in IIRC every presidential election ever held in the US, is “I might be decisive because no-one else will vote” a plausible prior?
sure one person voting wont make a difference…But you cant exactly put up a billboard and say “dont vote because YOUR vote wont make a difference”
1 vote will never make alter the decision in the presidential election… but it will count, and be counted… i cant exactly explain what im trying to say…
Short answer, no, because your vote is just 1, and an election will probably never be decided by exactly one vote. However, it’s not that simple, because the total of all the votes is a results of millions of single votes. For example: suppose you decide that pennies don’t matter and then from that day foward you throw every penny on the ground. However, in some bizarro universe, the bizarro you decides that pennies are worth keeping, and on that exact same day starts collecting pennies in a jar. After 30 years of penny collecting they will amass to a sizeable amount of money, despite the fact that individually they are nothing.
The same goes for voting. If all republicans suddenly decide voting is useless because their candidate is predicted to win anyway- then proceed to not vote, it would obviously sway the election towards the democrats. Well, enough rambling. What it all comes down to is whether you believe and individual can make a difference. I’m saying yes, because Captain Planet says so, and he knows everything.
Off to Great Debates.
DrMatrix - General Questions Moderator
But not everyone does. I think the smallest number of people whose actions can have an impact can be called the critical mass. Any number less than this mass who abstain don’t make a difference.
Greater the prepoll difference between candidates, greater the critical mass.
It’s true that the expected value for you is negative. But even if you have a one in a million chance of casting a decisive vote, that will affect hundreds of millions, even billions of people. So it’s reasonable to believe that the expected value for humanity is positive. Therefore, not voting simply because it has a negative expected value is a selfish act. Which is why some countries require you to vote.
hawthorne: That’s an approximation, right? Otherwise, I’d wonder how you’re getting transcental numbers from an algebraic calculation.
The presidency was decided in 2002 by under 600 votes.
Some local elections are just as close.
But if you want to make an impact, don’t just vote, advocate.
Did I just type 2002? 2000. I should wake up.
Ned Regan, Dennis Vacco, Al D’Amato, and George Pataki (all of whom were Reps who won at least one statewide race since 1990) would beg to differ.
It takes a half-hour to vote where you are, eman77? I was a poll worker on Election Day 2002, and we were able to get everyone into a polling booth within 5 minutes of arrival.