As I have been involved in two local political campaigns in the past few years, I have been confronted with the well-known fact that that voter turnout in local/state elections are significantly lower than voter turnout in presidential elections. Data complied by the Virginia Department of Elections shows that the average voter turnout rate (% voting of total registered) in presidential elections since 1976 is 75.2%, whereas voting turnout in non-presidential elections is only 48.1%. How do we account for this? And is there any way to overcome it?
Reading these statistics over the weekend made me re-consider Muller's Public Choice Chapter 14, particularly sections 14.1.2 and 14.1.3, 'A taste for voting' and 'Voting as a game of cat and mouse'. Mueller 14.1.1 clearly defines the rational-voting paradox, and sections 14.1.2 and 14.1.3 seek to in part, explain. Section 14.1.2 discusses how voting can be a private, symbolic act. I certainly engage in voting as a symbolic act, not because I believe my vote will affect the outcome. I don't believe that the absentee ballot that is sitting on my desk as I type this will affect the outcome of the upcoming local election. Rather, I find it much more plausible that voters such as myself vote to be 1) symbolic or 2) to be expressive. Both of these explanations are true in my life- that I vote to express my support on a candidates' position, and vote because I believe it is my civic duty to vote. All this to say that in my life, and in people I have talked to since doing the reading, Muller's explanations appear to hold true. However, Muller notes that as I expect more people to abstain, it becomes more rational for me to vote. Applying this to Virginia elections, since we expect voter turnout to be lower in local elections, it would be more rational for me to vote in those elections than presidential ones. But I feel more convicted to vote in presidential elections.... I am curious to hear other's thoughts on the matter.
2 comments:
Great post! What I find interesting about these statistics is that while yes, one can definitely argue that Presidential elections are more "important" per se, I am surprised that people do not realize the value in local elections as well. As we discussed in Tiebout, states and localities are more apt to satisfy people's preferences than the national government is. As we all know, different states have different laws, whether it be income tax, public school requirements, speed limits, abortion laws -- you name it. The real thing that differentiates states from each other are all the different institutions and rules that they have. With this in mind, since people in only that state or locality can vote, the number of people in each election is infinitely smaller than in the Presidential election, thus the probability of your vote changing the outcome (the "p" in the equation we discussed today) of the election is much greater, AND states and localities have more impacts on your every day life. Utility gained from someone with your policy preferences should be higher in theory.
Many people are uninformed about local elections which is why there is less voter turnout, probably due to the fact that most people rely on news media conglomerates rather than things like local newspapers and TV stations (I learned this in MDST 3680). Maybe the search costs of becoming informed about local politics these days have become too high to make it worth it and people are "rationally ignorant," but I would argue that it is irrational to vote in a national election more rather than a state or local election, because the smaller elections have more of an effect on our every day lives and the probability of actually making an impact is higher.
Thanks for this thoughtful post, Jacob. While this does seem to pose an issue with the idea that one is more likely to vote when their chance of effecting the election is greater, I still think it is possible to use the equation we looked at in the readings and class to explain what might be going on here.
If one's choice to vote = p*b - C + D then, here, p*b of presidential elections < than that of local elections. Since both are still practically zero I wonder if this is anything but an empirical distinction though. Let's hold C constant in the equation (Rachel already explored what it could look like if C was greater for local election). Now let's deal with D. What if D of presidential elections > than that of local elections. I think this could be the reason for a few cases, but not exclusive to all people. 1) There is something deep in national DNA about presidential elections in the US--the separation from monarchal control, the birth of the "American experiment" after the failed confederacy under the Articles of Confederation, and its revisioning under the Constitution towards a democratic-republic with strong federal power. In essence, I think the fact that we have a presidential election is deeply valued by our country because of our history, perhaps in a way that goes beyond our valuing of local elections. Thus our "patriotic" utility in the act of voting itself increases D in presidential elections. 2) With more people involved in an election there are more people to bug you about voting. People want other people to care about the things that they have a stake in too and don't often care about what doesn't effect them. Thus, I think social pressures, and the added utility in D by getting rid of them, are probably larger in presidentially elections. 3) Finally, I think this is probably the least likely of reasons, but it could also be possible that for some the expressive value of voting is greater for presidential elections since it is broadcasted to the whole nation.
Post a Comment