WHY vote? I make no appeal to anarchy or even apathy, but to rationality.
Consider this: the chance that your vote will make any difference to the
outcome is vanishingly tiny. No general election has ever been decided by just
one vote. Given such little justification for the effort involved in trekking to
the polling station, wouldn鈥檛 it be more sensible to stay at home? Yet millions
of citizens do go to the polls in national elections鈥攂ehaviour that has
long puzzled political scientists.
One solution is to assume that voting provides other benefits: you can affirm
your allegiance to a party or fulfil your democratic duty. But ever since
Stanford psychologists George Quattrone and Amos Tversky demonstrated the
鈥渧oter鈥檚 illusion鈥� in 1984, an irrational motive has emerged.
Advertisement
Quattrone and Tversky asked students to imagine they supported one of the two
parties running for office in Delta, a country where voting entailed
considerable time and effort. Half of them were briefed that since non-aligned
citizens would split their vote equally between the two parties, voting by party
supporters would decide the outcome of the elections. The other half, the
controls, were told that as party supporters would vote in equal numbers,
non-aligned citizens would decide the outcome.
Although the forecast margin of victory in both cases was several hundred
thousand votes, significantly more participants in the first group decided to
vote. Moreover, the members of that group judged the probability that their vote
would predict their party鈥檚 victory as greater than those in the control
group.
People seem to think: 鈥淚f I vote, others who think like me will vote too, but
if I abstain, others like me will abstain too. So I鈥檇 better vote, otherwise
none of them will vote.鈥� They are confusing correlation with cause. Although
your vote might be indicative of similar behaviour, it cannot cause others to
vote.
It鈥檚 the same argument elsewhere: the volume of applause in the theatre would
be imperceptibly less if you didn鈥檛 clap, large-scale TV charity appeals don鈥檛
hang on my paltry contribution, and when was a war lost for lack of one
volunteer? 鈥淲hat if everyone thought like that?鈥� seems a compelling objection.
But how could my private decision influence the decisions made by myriad
others?
This is what psychologists call 鈥渕agical鈥� thinking鈥攁nd it is
widespread. Studies of gamblers show craps players throw the dice hard when they
want high numbers and gently when they want low ones. Keeping your fingers
crossed and cheering TV sport are common.
Quattrone and Tversky wondered how Calvinists are motivated to behave
virtuously when, according to their religion, God selects those destined for
heaven and hell before birth. Although the earthly conduct of both Catholics and
Calvinists is supposed to correlate with their post-mortal fate, the relation is
causal only for Catholics. Calvinists can鈥檛 change their fate鈥攖hough by
behaving badly they may reveal damning evidence of it. For Catholics, there is
always confession.
Elections can be close. But even in Florida, where 537 votes separated Bush
from Gore, non-voting Democrats have no cause to regret their
apathy鈥攗nless, perhaps secretly, they believe that by voting they would
have caused 536 others to vote like them.