1
MU MVZ 449
Banishing the Paradox of Voting &
Elections: A Cost-Benefit Analysis
The Paradox of Voting in America
Americans believe voting is
important.
They see it as:
* a civic dutycivic dutycivic dutycivic duty;
* key to maintaining popular
control of government;
* the very essence of
democracy.
2
Paradox, cont'd
At the same time, Americans tend not to votenot to votenot to votenot to vote.
* Between 70 and 75 percent of the voting-age
population is registered to vote;
* About 50 percent vote in Presidential elections;
* About 33 percent vote in midterm elections;
* Even fewer vote in off-year, special, and primary
elections.
Comparative T.O. Levels
Voter turnout levels in other democracies such as
South Africa, Denmark, Israel, Germany,
Mexico, Britain, Russia, France and Canada
range from 15 to 35 percent higher than turnout
in American presidential elections.
In Australia, over 90 percent of the voting-age
population participates in national elections.
What about American culture, society, and
politics explain Americans' comparative
unwillingness to vote?
3
Voting: A Cost-Benefit Analysis
Principle of Politics
#1:
All political
activity is goaloriented
and
purposive.
Some political scientists
argue that it is not
"rational" for Americans
to vote because:
* The "costs" of voting in
America are
comparatively high.
* The "benefits" of voting in
America are
comparatively low.
Voting "Costs"
There is a certain bureaucracy to American
elections that increase the costs of votingcosts of votingcosts of votingcosts of voting.
* Voter registration rules often require voters to
register often well in advance of elections.
* Many states have laws that "purge" nonvoters
from the registration rolls.
4
Costs, cont'd
The costs of votingcosts of votingcosts of votingcosts of voting in America are also high
because of the frequency of American
elections.
* Two-year election cycles are nearly half the
election cycles of similar democracies.
* Americans' rare use of primary elections
doubles the frequency with which
Americans are asked to vote.
Costs, cont'd
Finally, in other countries, political parties play
important roles in mobilizing voters and thus
decrease the costs of voter turnout.
Whereas in the 19th century American parties
performed this role, the decline of American
party organizations in the 20th century made
American parties ill-equipped to perform this
mobilization role.
5
Implications of Costs
If the costs of voting are high in
America, many would-be voters
perceive the benefitsbenefitsbenefitsbenefits of voting to
be low.
* Americans often believe that one
vote cannot make a difference.
* Many Americans believe that
there it does not matter which
party controls the government.
Implications & Reform
There are structural features of the American
electoral system that undermine the impact of
individual votes.
* America's single-member plurality (SMP)
electoral system tends to dilute the impact of
individual votes in specific geographic areas,
particularly when compared to proportional
representation (PR) electoral systems.
* The electoral college system of selecting the
President also decreases the potential impact
of individual votes on electoral outcomes.
6
Voting CBA
With the costs of votingcosts of votingcosts of votingcosts of voting being comparatively high
in the United States, it is little wonder that
America's voting age population votes less than
citizens of other countries that through strong
parties and eased voting bureaucracies
subsidize voting behavior.
And, with the benefits of votingbenefits of votingbenefits of votingbenefits of voting being
comparatively low in the United States, it is also
not a surprise that countries that have more
parties and thus greater choice for voters see
higher turnout.
The Benefits of Elections to Elites
Democracies derive legitimacy from popular
consent and having been elected by the public
and political elites work to translate the public
support conferred upon them in elections into a
tool of governance.
7
Defining the Ground When You Win
* Individual politicians claim "mandates"
for governmental actions based on
electoral outcomes.
* When they win, politicians claim that
their victories amounted to a
referendum for a certain set of policies.
* The larger the margin of victory, the
more plausible the case is that voters
conferred a "mandate."
Winning & Agenda-Setting
Claims to "mandates" are often dubious:
* People tend to vote for or against politicians for
a variety of reasons including policy, party, and
personality;
* There is good evidence that voters vote
retrospectively; that is, they vote to reward or
punish the incumbent party rather than confer a
mandate on an opposition candidate.
8
The Incentives to Vote
If elected officials are the "agents" of voters in a
principal-agent relationship, it is clear why there
are incentives for each of us to vote.
* Elected officials act in your name. As such, you
should play as much a role in their selection as
you can.
* Any good principal-agent relationship requires
the principal to monitor and guide the agent.
Voting helps to enhance the "faithfulness" and
accountability of your elected agents.
Elections & Consequences
* Elections are the most direct, equal, and
authoritative means of gaining popular control
over politicians.
* Failing to turnout in elections surrenders the
control of politicians (i.e., your agent) to those
who do, in fact, turnout.