The Rational Choice Approach to Elections - The Paradox of Voting Flashcards
What did Downs (1957) have to say about elections? (2)
Anthony Downs (1957): An Economic Theory of Democracy.
Elections involve the interaction between:
1) Voters trying to maximise the personal utility derived from having their preferred party/candidate elected.
2) Parties trying to maximise their chance of being elected.
What are the two main assumptions underlying Downs’ theory?
1) Perfect & public information:
- Each voter knows the position of each party.
- Moreover, each party knows where voters stand (e.g.,
polls, surveys).
2) Individuals’ preferences & party platforms (policies) along
the “left-right continuum”.
i.e., there is only one dimension of electoral competition
When would a rational voter choose to turn up to the polls?
The first decision an individual has to make is whether to go to vote or not.
Voting is costly (both in money and time). Voters need to gather information about the characteristics
(e.g., position) of the competing parties. They need to go to the poll stations and they typically need to queue.
So, a rational voter will only show up at the polls if the benefits (B) derived from turning out to vote
exceed the costs (C).
What is the benefit an individual gets from voting?
Bearing this in mind when would a rational voter decide to vote?
What is the implication of this?
The benefit from voting is helping your candidate to win.
But really a voter would only help their party to win if there was a tie between two parties.
Therefore a voter would only vote if they knew that by voting they would help their party to win by one vote.
Elections are hardly ever decided by one vote, so rational choice theory and the calculus of voting would suggest that no rational individual should turn out to vote.
What can be argued about the costs of voting in order to try and solve the calculus of voting problem?
How can parties try to reduce costs? (2)
Does this solve the problem?
1) The costs of voting are not very high:
- People hardly ever read party programs (low information
costs) .
- They just vote for a party because their choice is based on their parents’/friends’/relatives’.
- They have always voted for the same party.
- The candidate is charismatic.
Parties can try to reduce the monetary costs of going to the polls by:
1) Providing transport to the polling station.
2) Providing child-care while parents vote.
However, because the probability of affecting the outcome is so small, even tiny costs would discourage the rational voter.
What did Downs suggest was the solution to the paradox of voting?
What’s the issue with this?
Downs(1957): If nobody voted, democracy would
collapse ⇒ individuals are willing to tolerate the cost
of voting to insure themselves against this.
Problem with this explanation?
public-good ⇒ collective-action problem, free-riding
What can be said about people’s estimations of their impact on elections and the solution to the paradox of voting?
People wildly over-estimate their impact on elections
but if the rational calculus works so badly in this setting,
why would we think it works better in other situations?
shouldn’t we just abandon rational choice theory?
What solution did Rider and Ordeshook offer to the paradox of voting?
The act of voting itself entails benefits not related
to the outcome:
affirming allegiance to the political system
affirming a partisan preference (e.g., I am a proud
Conservative)
civic duty
How dod citizens acquire the sense of duty to vote? (5)
Factors important to becoming engaged:
1) Parental learning (Settle et al.)
2) Curricular activities (Condon)
3) Social groups (Friendship groups) (Settle et al.)
4) Youth organisations (Bobek et al.)
5) Volunteering schemes (Kirlin)
What is the relevance of civic duty to voter turnout?
This means models of turnout including civic
duty tend to be much more accurate
– A keen sense of civic duty can account for 3 in 5 of voters’
decision to vote
• Duty is important to voting
– Main reason to vote for 3 in 5 voters (Blais)
– Low turnout = failure of democracy (Lijphart)
– Seen as barometer of civic engagement
Why is civic duty limited in its use for explaining turnout? (6)
What differences occur? (Blais) – Age – Religion – Income – Education – Location – Interest in politics
Why is civic duty declining? (5)
– Social capital declines (Putnam)
– Apathy amongst younger voters (Wattenburg)
– General apathy amongst voters (Lijphart)
– Lowering of the voting age (Franklin)
– Generational changes to society
• (older citizens who traditionally have high sense of duty
being replaced by younger generational cohorts who
have looser sense of civic duty)
