One might think that doctors, with their white coats and shiny stethoscopes, would be righteously (as Hippocrates would like) standing near the front of the line at the voting booths. After all, the expectation is that (most) doctors are mature, well-educated, and trustworthy. I mean, we do trust them with our lives. But a twist has left some (let’s say less Economically-inclined individuals) scratching their heads: these medical mavens have voted less than what one may expect in recent years, sometimes even less than the general population. It's almost as if they're too busy prescribing pills to prescribe political choices! And in a not so surprising turn of events, not everyone is happy about this pattern of behavior.
However, we Sherlock Holmeses of Public Choice know that there’s more to this phenomenon. Diving deeper, there's a straightforward economic rationale behind this “quirky” behavior: the voting formula (p*B + D - C) helps shed light on this. Here, (p*B) represents the probable benefit of voting for a candidate, (C) is the opportunity cost (think: time, resources), and (D) is the intrinsic joy/benefit one derives from voting. And for doctors, the math doesn't quite suggest that they should rush to the polls. Their time is incredibly valuable, making the cost (C) of voting quite high. When they evaluate the potential net benefit (p*B) and weigh it against their most valuable alternative forgone, it becomes clear why the voting booth isn't their top priority. Additionally, their lesser presence at the polls signals that the intrinsic value (D) they derive from voting isn't as compelling as it is for other groups. So perhaps maybe in this case, perhaps we imbibe a dosage of forgiveness for our busy medical counterparts.
(This message is presented to you by the American Medical Association…not actually, don’t sue me)
No comments:
Post a Comment