# Ethical behavior given the Paradox of Voting

**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-behavior-given-the-paradox-of-voting/747425
**Category:** Politics & Elections
**Created:** [February 28, 2016, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-behavior-given-the-paradox-of-voting/747425 "2016-02-28T20:27:27Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2016, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-behavior-given-the-paradox-of-voting/747425/21 "2016-03-02T03:32:46Z")

</div>

Dr. Drake answered the question, but here are some citations:

> **[Paradox of voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting)**
>
> The paradox of voting, also called Downs' paradox, is that for a rational and egoistic voter (Homo economicus), the costs of voting will normally exceed the expected benefits. Because the chance of exercising the pivotal vote is minuscule 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. Responses to the paradox have included the view that voters vote to express their preference for a ...

Here, the paradox is called, “…one of the most persistent and recalcitrant empirical puzzles for the rational choice theory of politics.” [A Possible Solution to the Paradox of Voter Turnout on JSTOR](http://www.jstor.org/stable/2647727?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)  
That cite refers to the costs of “…personal time and energy into driving to the polls and casting their ballot.”

> [@Pleonast](#):
>
> This is not true. It’s the “straw that broke the camel’s back” fallacy. The final straw cannot be solely blamed, and neither can the “decisive” vote be credited.
> 
> If a million people vote, each vote made 1/1,000,000th share of the final decision. This solves the apparent paradox. As fewer people vote, the impact of each vote increases. Each person will have their perceived value and cost. At some point, the value of voting becomes greater than the cost for that person.

Well, the marginal vote never makes a difference for non-local elections. Because when the polling is close, the judiciary decides, not the marginal voter. And the winning margin almost always exceeds one vote.

## There’s nothing about allocating blame or credit in that argument. It’s just a matter of debating whether one should vote at all. (I say one should, but I try to acknowledge the existence of the paradox.)

Incidentally one philosopher argues that voting is in no way obligatory, but that if one votes, one should vote on behalf of the common good. Also, there’s nothing wrong with buying or selling a vote. Frankly, I think this point is only quasi-topical in this thread, but I thought I’d include it for completeness. Cite: Jason Brennan, _The Ethics of Voting_, Princeton University Press, 2011, 222pp., $29.95 (hbk), ISBN 9780691144818

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-behavior-given-the-paradox-of-voting/747425.md?page=1)