Easing the Burden of Voter Registration

In a recent editorial in the Washington Post, Victoria Bassetti writes about policy alternatives aimed at “Easing the burden of voter registration.” Bassetti contrasts the United States, where the voter is burdened with registration, with many other democratic nations where the government handles registration. She argues that these contrasting registration systems explain why the United States has election participation rates way below those of other nations. Bassetti writes:

“Many political and social scientists believe that our country’s practice of putting the registration burden on individuals, coupled with outmoded, paper-intense registration systems, are major causes of the United States’ perennially low voter turnout. One study estimated that voter registration barriers in the United States depress turnout by 5 to 10 percent.”

Economic theory states that if a voter is a rational decision-maker, they will only vote if the marginal benefits of voting are greater than or equal to the marginal costs. Marginal costs include pre-election day costs as well as the costs incurred on Election Day (i.e. missing work). Bassetti contends that that by requiring the voter to register and through a system that is paper-intense (i.e. requiring printing, buying a stamp, mailing, etc), the marginal cost of voting is very large. It is therefore rational for Americans to abstain from voting, because the marginal cost exceeds the marginal benefit of voting. Bassetti proposes to remove the burden of registration from the voter and place it on the government, decreasing the marginal cost and making it more rational to vote. Bassetti references Canada: “In Canada, election officials gather information on citizens from other data sources (for example, tax rolls) and create a continuously updated, comprehensive list of voters. Almost 93 percent of eligible Canadian voters are automatically put on its voter rolls. The ones who don’t make it can register on Election Day.” Bassetti’s proposal is compelling because it is an actionable way that the government could ease the burden of registration, in the hopes of making the voters’ economic calculus more favorable to showing up on Election Day. I think it is important to point out that for many settled adults, registration is a one-time cost that should not affect the yearly rational calculus except for the election year in which the registration had to be submitted or changed. Therefore other ways to improve turnout should be considered, either by reducing Election Day costs or by increasing marginal benefits through a reform of the electoral system. In addition, a related topic that could be pursued theoretically is to ask whether proposals to reform the system of elections (such as Bassetti’s proposal) would ever make the marginal cost to the government of facilitating elections greater than the marginal benefit to the government.

The Importance of Voting (According to the Media)

Former Governor Jennifer Granholm, host of “The War Room, ” makes an argument focused on increasing the Democratic voter turnout. However, Granholm could benefit from some basic economic theory.  She argues:

“You might think you're too busy to vote; or that the partisan fighting makes you nauseous; or maybe you feel your vote doesn't count.”

From an economic perspective, many people are too busy to vote.  The marginal benefit of voting is very low – around $.01 at the national level in a swing state – due to the sheer number of voters.  Marginal cost is substantially higher because opportunity cost must be factored in – a person must interrupt their whole work day in order to get out to the polls to cast their vote.  Just like in the market place, you should only act if the marginal cost equals the marginal benefit for that action.  Therefore, unless you rank the time it takes you to vote (including travel time) at around $.01, you very well might be too busy to vote.  Granholm could also benefit from a math lesson – the chance of a person’s vote mattering is practically zero in a national election due to the sheer number of voters.  If any one person stays home on Election Day, the outcome will not change, so in fact your vote doesn’t count for it will not be decisive.

Whether on purpose or not, Granholm spends a significant amount of her article attempting to raise the perceived marginal benefit through the promotion of civic duty:

“You -- or someone you know -- may be one of those 90 million choosing not to vote. Voting is not compulsory. America is a free country. A free country honored by 1.3 million soldiers who've died since 1775 defending our nation and our precious right to vote.”

However, it is also arguably rational for Granholm to make this persuasive argument.  Johnson (from our reading on Voting, Rational Abstention and Rational Ignorance) makes the argument that journalists have an especially strong “impact on decision making in the political market” including whether or not a person will take the time to vote in the next election. Granholm’s argument -- that voting is not only your duty but not voting is exactly what the other side wants -- could convince more people to vote. While this article alone will not be enough to make a difference in the upcoming election, it’s a start.  If enough people see these types of articles and videos, are persuaded by them and actually vote, while none of their individual votes will make the difference, collectively these votes could change the outcome of the election.

Rising Obesity Rates in America

A new report released by Trust for America’s Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation finds that the number of obese adults is expected to increase in every state in America over the next 20 years, with some obesity rates over 60%.  Doctors predict that with this rise in obesity rates, type II diabetes, heart disease, and arthritis rates could increase tenfold.  The report finds a direct correlation between obesity rates and health care costs.  The report states: 

“By 2030, medical costs associated with treating preventable obesity-related diseases are estimated to increase by $48 billion to $66 billion per year in the United States, and the loss in economic productivity could be between $390 billion and $580 billion annually by 2030.”  

This quote leads to several economic implications.

            In class, we discussed basic externality theory.  Externalities occur when the actions of one party make another party better or worse off, but the first party doesn’t bear the costs nor receives the benefits.  While consumers may think that the obesity epidemic has no tangible effects on a third party, this analysis shows that it could lead to a $390 billion decline in wealth across society.  In terms of externality theory, this negative consumption externality arises from individuals’ consumption of (unhealthy) food and leads to a decrease in the social marginal benefit.  Since private marginal benefit ≠ social marginal benefit, we are no longer at an allocatively efficient point.  Consumers over consume, resulting in a deadweight loss.  If consumers can be enticed to internalize this externality, like with a tax on consumption, the market can again achieve an allocatively efficient equilibrium. Finally, the CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation recommends that 

“At every level of government, we must pursue policies that preserve health, prevent disease and reduce health care costs.”  

As we also discussed in class, the field of economics avoids normative statements like this one but rather objectively applies models based on certain assumptions, ultimately leading to positive statements, whose interpretation may lead to somewhat subjective policy implications.