I think you are right to characterize voting as a collective action problem, but wrong to conclude that you have a duty not to defect. Mangu-Ward is right about the quality of voters. Most people are incapable of thinking about statistics or economics or foreign policy or tradeoffs or doing cost-benefit analysis, all of which you need to do a good job deciding on a candidate. In theory their errors in judgment could average out to a good decision, but as Bryan Caplan argues in “Myth of the Rational Voter”, they don’t, and instead are systematically biased (namely, towards socialism and nationalism). Saying “It doesn’t matter who you vote for, just vote!” is like saying “It doesn’t matter if you don’t know how to do surgery, just cut him up!”
Now, you could maybe argue that you have the duty not to defect if you have taken the time to become well-informed and unbiased (i.e., you are not the sort of person who watches Fox News or MSNBC all day, and you have made an effort to think non-tribally about which candidate will be best for you and all your countrymen). But do you have the duty to become well-informed and unbiased in the first place? I think not, since there are lots of other more effective pro-social ways to spend your time, and you could do one of those instead.
Well said! Only through individual actions, even when seemingly random, can we achieve a rational outcome—despite any irrationality at the individual level. I believe those who promote inaction based on individual irrationality are not true libertarians. VOTE!
Maybe a simple "yes" or "no" is also necessary as a survival tool in our society? Maybe that's why the Neanderthals disappeared without this simplicity? It's possibly a feature, not a bug. Who knows!
You may find this post of mine interesting. Mangu-Ward's 1-in-60-million is way off (though she was probably accurately citing a now-obsolete and flawed study.)
When one uses reasonable estimates, voting has a very high value for society (if not any given individual.)
I would like to learn more. I have long been fascinated by the prospect of removing elected reps from the equation. I have sortition as a possible pathway. You may like my discussion on this: https://www.lianeon.org/p/imagining-our-martian-government
“Not because voting is individually rational, but precisely because it is not.”
Very good piece.
*Fantastic* closing sentence.
I think you are right to characterize voting as a collective action problem, but wrong to conclude that you have a duty not to defect. Mangu-Ward is right about the quality of voters. Most people are incapable of thinking about statistics or economics or foreign policy or tradeoffs or doing cost-benefit analysis, all of which you need to do a good job deciding on a candidate. In theory their errors in judgment could average out to a good decision, but as Bryan Caplan argues in “Myth of the Rational Voter”, they don’t, and instead are systematically biased (namely, towards socialism and nationalism). Saying “It doesn’t matter who you vote for, just vote!” is like saying “It doesn’t matter if you don’t know how to do surgery, just cut him up!”
Now, you could maybe argue that you have the duty not to defect if you have taken the time to become well-informed and unbiased (i.e., you are not the sort of person who watches Fox News or MSNBC all day, and you have made an effort to think non-tribally about which candidate will be best for you and all your countrymen). But do you have the duty to become well-informed and unbiased in the first place? I think not, since there are lots of other more effective pro-social ways to spend your time, and you could do one of those instead.
Well said! Only through individual actions, even when seemingly random, can we achieve a rational outcome—despite any irrationality at the individual level. I believe those who promote inaction based on individual irrationality are not true libertarians. VOTE!
The voting system is the core problem. We get simple "yes" or "no" choices that do not reflect the intensity of our convictiona or beliefs.
It's a zero sum game with FPTP.
Maybe a simple "yes" or "no" is also necessary as a survival tool in our society? Maybe that's why the Neanderthals disappeared without this simplicity? It's possibly a feature, not a bug. Who knows!
Maybe!
You may find this post of mine interesting. Mangu-Ward's 1-in-60-million is way off (though she was probably accurately citing a now-obsolete and flawed study.)
When one uses reasonable estimates, voting has a very high value for society (if not any given individual.)
https://www.maximumtruth.org/p/deep-dive-is-voting-rational-in-swing
What different system could exist? Curious to hear your suggestions.
I would like to learn more. I have long been fascinated by the prospect of removing elected reps from the equation. I have sortition as a possible pathway. You may like my discussion on this: https://www.lianeon.org/p/imagining-our-martian-government