In a recent New York Times op-ed, "Vote as if it Matters", the author, Paul Krugman argues that the high number of young voters who want to vote for a third party candidate (such as Gary Johnson) in the upcoming election poses a threat to the outcome of this year's presidential race. The author continues his point by stating that if one wishes to vote for Gary Johnson, then that means he or she must be indifferent about whether Trump or Clinton wins the election.
In contrast, the economist Johnson (not the presidential candidate) would argue that each individual's choice to not vote for Trump or Clinton does not mean that they are indifferent about that outcome, but that their expected benefit of voting for either candidate is not enough for them to cover the costs of voting. In fact, someone could have a strong preference for one candidate, but if she is rational, then she will realize that her vote has little chance of making a difference.
Since the voters for Gary Johnson must realize that they have nearly a zero-percent chance of casting a winning vote, then they must be doing so for a different reason: likely they want to vote as a form of expressive behavior.
Overall, Krugman's argument does not hold up against economic logic. He writes that "your vote matters, and you should act accordingly." For each individual, his vote does not actually matter (barring a miraculous circumstance). However, Krugman has an incentive to encourage others to vote, since his article is aimed towards partisan readers, and he believes that his article could encourage readers to vote for his preferred candidate By writing an article, Krugman incurs no costs that are not covered by the benefits of publishing an article, so it is rational for Krugman to encourage others to vote, as a larger group of people could have a slightly higher chance of actually affecting the election results.
No comments:
Post a Comment