1 / 13

Understanding Voter Behavior: A Rational Investigation Into Public Good Valuation

This study delves into the paradox of nonvoting and questions if voters truly value the public good. It explores the rationality behind voting decisions through the lens of individual duty, expressive value, and the cost-benefit analysis. Does a vote become irrational unless it has a perceptible effect? The analysis also examines the motivations behind contributing to the public good and advancing democracy through voting, highlighting the complex interplay between individual choice and collective decision-making in a societal context.

ettal
Download Presentation

Understanding Voter Behavior: A Rational Investigation Into Public Good Valuation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Rational Ignorance & Beyond Gerry Mackie U.C.S.D Political Science May 2008

  2. Paradox of Nonvoting • Individual would vote iff pB – C > 0 • p = probability of being pivotal in causing election outcome • B = Benefit to voter from winning election outcome • C = Cost of voting to individual voter • No one would vote • D = duty • E = expressive value of voting • pB- C + D + E > 0 ???

  3. Do Voters Value the Public Good? • Citizens value the public interest at least as much as they do their private interest • Kinder and Kiewiet 1981; Sears and Funk 1990; Funk 1997; Funk 2000; Chong, Citrin and Conley 2001; • Brodsky and Thompson 1993; Shabman and Stephenson 1994 • Jankowski 2002; Jankowski 2004, Fowler 2006

  4. Is a Vote Irrational Unless Pivotal?

  5. Duplicative Causation • Smoky and Blaze independently start fires, each sufficient to destroy Suzanne’s house; they converge. Necessary condition test fails. • NESS test • a particular condition was a cause of (condition contributing to) a specific consequence if and only if it was a necessary element of a set of antecedent actual conditions that was sufficient for the occurrence of the consequence. (Note that the phrase "a set" permits a plurality of sufficient sets.)

  6. Is a Vote Irrational Unless it has a Perceptible Effect?

  7. More Typical Voters

  8. Imperceptible Effects • Imperceptibility of harm or benefit does not mean absence of harm or benefit • 100 bandits, 100 villagers, 100 beans • If stakes are high enough, each has a duty to contribute, even if her contribution is imperceptible

  9. Voters Motivated by Duty and By Influence on Outcome • Blais 2000: Duty; p, B, C variables • Schlozman, Verba, Brady 1995: Duty; influence policy • Opp 2000: Interaction of discontent and capacity to influence; duty • Finkel and Muller 1998: Discontent, group action can be successful, individual can influence

  10. Is it Irrational for an Individual to Advance the Public Good? • If public good is valued, are individuals willing to contribute to it? • Actual contributors’ dilemmas vs. potential contributors’ dilemmas • Thick theory – firms on the market, objective • Observer’s perspective on collective action • Thin theory – individuals, subjective • Actor’s perspective on collective action • Individuals do contribute to low-cost public goods; Pellikan and van der Veen 2002; Frey and Meier 2004 • Some social animals “vote”; so do humans

  11. Individuals Do Contribute to the Public Good

  12. Vote Contributes Both to Advancing Democracy and to the Decision on a Particular Issue

  13. Saving Expected Utility Theory • Vote not a choice of one alternative over another, but a contribution to a choice to be made by a collective. • Contribution to collective choice ≠ individual choice • Contributory model distinct from expressive model • For contributory, expressive value of vote can be zero • Contributory value = advancing a public good • Contributory model similar but not identical to altruistic model.

More Related