This past week, Scotland
voted on an independence referendum. This election was the first in which 16
and 17 year olds were allowed to vote, and more than 90% of the eligible teenagersregistered to do so. In class, we discussed the marginal costs and benefits of
voting and the rationale for not voting. Given that an individual’s vote will
decide an election is miniscule, it makes sense not to waste time and money
that they would rather spend elsewhere. It seems that in the case of Scotland’s
teenagers, they get extra utility from the act of voting itself.
In “Voting, Rational Abstention,
and Rational Ignorance,” Johnson claims “individuals simply have no incentive
to invest their time and other resources in obtaining and sorting out
information on public sector issues in order to make a more informed decision.”
However, since the topic of independence was so prevalent, Scottish voters were
subjected to social pressure. This encouraged them to take part and to gain
knowledge on the subject. One teen says, “suddenly everyone knew everything
about politics. Everyone researched it, because they wanted to know what was
going on” and another that “it blew up
so big, especially on social media – you can't not get involved, because it's
everywhere.” With everyone at school talking about the election before and
after it happened, teens wanted to avoid any social costs of not voting.
2 comments:
After letting teenagers of 16 and 17 years old vote in the Scottish elections, Britain is considering extending the voting population for national elections as well. Since the 1950s, Britain has been increasingly encountering the problem of abstention in its electoral procedures, particularly because of an aging population that weighs heavily the marginal cost of voting against the expected marginal benefit. While these elder rational voters have no incentive to cast their preferences, the youth may behave otherwise, as proven in the 85% voting turnout in the Scottish referendum. This article even suggests that Britain’s decision may begin a global trend in which countries allow teenagers to cast their vote. What implications may this decision have on democracy?
In the case of the Scottish referendum, Libby not only claims that the youth voted because of great social pressures, but also were well informed when making their decision. To this argument, I will like to add that Scottish teens also voted to express themselves. Thus, if every country enacts the extension of the voting population aiming at increasing voting turnout and the youth vote solely for expressiveness, then what does this say about the election’s outcome? Teenagers of 16 and 17 years old are more likely to be ignorant in electoral issues than the senior population, but they are also more likely to vote as means of expression. Hence, we are confronted with the problem of rational ignorance versus voting turnout. It is either the ignorant many or the informed few, which is better for democracy?
Post a Comment