More Americans Vote Early - but why?

A recent review done by USA Today revealed that more and more voters are casting their ballots prior to the upcoming November 2nd election day, also colloquially referred to as day of midterm elections. The statistics provided in the news blurb indicate that roughly two million more people, across thirteen key states, came out to participate in early balloting for upcoming primaries when compared to the participation in 2006's midterm elections, when only four million voters participated in such programs. These are fairly astonishing statistics considering that although variation exists within the number of voters per election, an increase in participation by 50% in consecutive elections is definitely against the norm. The article states the implementation of new state laws, which made increased availability of early balloting at election offices, as a major cause of the increased early voter turnout. Additionally, the article mentions that Utah and Texas seem to be particularly affected by the new State legislation, as early votes accounted for 25% and 40% of the total votes for their primaries, respectively. While the aforementioned article points out some interesting statistics, it fails to explore any possible motives or rationale behind the increase in pro-early voting legislation. Likewise, the article neglects to mention any potential consequences of said newly passed legislation, other than the obvious increase in early ballot voting. Interestingly enough, literature written by Johnson and Downs, regarding voting and policy making in parties respectively, both seem to point out various curiosities brought to light by the quoted article. Johnson would argue that the probability of casting a decisive vote is no greater by participating in an early primary so that shouldn't rationally motivate more individuals to vote. On the other hand, the new legislation could have decreased the marginal cost of voting to voters, as they now have more flexible timing options with regards to dropping off a ballot, thus potentially pushing another 2 million voters over the threshold where their marginal benefit of voting > their marginal cost of voting. Either way, this does not explore the reasons why states pushed for such pro-early balloting legislation anyways - which is where some of the fundamental claims made by economist Anthony Downs come into play. First, it is important to note that the two states that saw the biggest increase in early balloting were Texas and Utah - also both considered to be 'strongly republican' states. Although the democrats are holding a majority in both the House and Senate, many political pundits expect this midterm election to shake things up, as the recent polls and trends indicate more widespread support for Republican candidates. Its important to note that both the Senators and the majority of House Representatives from both Texas and Utah are currently Republican, which then serves to strengthen the claim made by Downs that 'parties make policy in order to win elections, rather than win elections in order to formulate policies.' Naturally, the best time for both Republicans and Democrats to gain votes is when the opposing party is losing popularity nationally. Thus, the state-specific policies that made early balloting more available served to benefit the Republican candidates, as they can capture the disgruntled liberal voters votes while nation-wide sentiments are still negative towards the Democratic party as a whole. Why then would Texas and Utah, two states that almost never fail to elect straight Republicans, be so worried about capturing early votes?

In my opinion, conservative legislators in Utah and Texas passed said laws in essence, in order to further guarantee the successful election and re-election of conservative law makers. By doing so, both the political leaders and PAC/lobbying leaders can minimize their rent seeking expenditures without necessarily decreasing the amount of rent they receive, especially since early knowledge of election results allows party leaders and political rent recipient group leaders to tone down their rent seeking expenditures and turn that into something positive for themselves. So, is higher participation in early voting programs necessarily a good thing for everyone? I think not.

Tobacco ban in Britain

Tobacco advertising was to be banned in Britain by the end of 2002. This initiative, called the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act, also prohibits the promotion of tobacco products through free gifts, coupons, and spam mail. The government predicted the ban would have saved 3,000 lives a year and reduce National Health Service bills by £340m.

However, there is no evidence of a clear connection between tobacco advertising and numbers of smokers :

Conservative health spokesman Tim Loughton argued a clear link between advertising and smoking numbers had not been proved." Nobody is disputing that smoking is harmful - it is, it's a filthy habit, we hate it, we would like it to be rather less prevalent among the population, particularly the young," he said. Tim Lord, chief executive of the Tobacco Manufacturers Association said: "We have always believed that banning all forms of tobacco advertising will not achieve the Government's aim of reducing smoking. "We are particularly disheartened that we will lose the right to talk to our adult consumers." Our main focus is now to co-operate with the Government and officials to ensure that the regulations governing implementation of the Bill are as practical and workable as possible, particularly from the point of view of retailers."

From the social point of view, ban for advertising in such industry as tobacco can be easily justified. It is a bad habit that most smokers want to get rid of, and it is even harmful to nonsmokers. But are the acts of bureaucrats driven only by the desire to stop smoking? As we found in class, this is not the case. In such an oligopolic industry as tobacco, major firms might invest resources to induce the government (income of the government officials is often supplemented by bribes and gifts) to grant them market power through promotion of the advertising ban. This prevents other firms from breaking into the market, which drives prices up and creates rent for the major firms.