After two decades Nepal's residents finally have elected local leaders. These are the first local elections in the country since since 1997. Voter turn out averaged around 70% with Kathmandu having a turnout of just over 75%. But the question is why would people have any incentive to go to the polls in a country where officials are more interested in their own interests than those of their constituents. In our basic voting model it worth voting when E[MB] > MC, where MB is the probability that your vote is a decisive vote. But in Kathmandu and other localities the marginal cost is very high. Travel time can reach an excess of an hour to drive 3 miles and wait lines at polling stations can also be just as long, but that didn't stop my 93 year old great-great aunt from showing up.
Based on this analysis a 70% turnout does not make sense. What we found though is that there also is another factor that is added onto the expected marginal benefit (+D). In class this variable was discussed as meaning several things such as moral duty, enjoyment of voting, and more. Here I think there are many factors that go into that variable. One major source is the emotion of not have voted in 20 years and feeling that power is coming back to localities, this is more than likely not going to happen. Another factor is the social implications of voting where everyone asks everyone in their neighborhood if they voted and it becomes an event for people to go to the polls. And probably the biggest factor is that people have not properly calculated their marginal costs and benefits. They have not been able to place a good estimate on the price of voting. Most people seem to have the notion that it is better to vote than to not in all circumstances. Therefore they end up voting even when the marginal costs out weight the marginal benefits.
Based on this analysis a 70% turnout does not make sense. What we found though is that there also is another factor that is added onto the expected marginal benefit (+D). In class this variable was discussed as meaning several things such as moral duty, enjoyment of voting, and more. Here I think there are many factors that go into that variable. One major source is the emotion of not have voted in 20 years and feeling that power is coming back to localities, this is more than likely not going to happen. Another factor is the social implications of voting where everyone asks everyone in their neighborhood if they voted and it becomes an event for people to go to the polls. And probably the biggest factor is that people have not properly calculated their marginal costs and benefits. They have not been able to place a good estimate on the price of voting. Most people seem to have the notion that it is better to vote than to not in all circumstances. Therefore they end up voting even when the marginal costs out weight the marginal benefits.
No comments:
Post a Comment