The Rationality of (Writing about) Voting

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. 

Will Madagascar's New President be a Condorcet Winner?

Madagascar is waiting on the results of the 2013 presidential election, the first after four years of political deadlock. Since president Marc Ravalomanana was ousted in 2009, Madagascar has been in a state of political turmoil and there have been severe social, environmental and economic costs as a result of this crisis. This article explains the progress of the current election. Over the next few days, results will continue to trickle in but as of right now, “Richard Jean-Louis Robinson has about 30% of the votes so far, while his main rival Hery Martial Rakotoarimanana Rajaonarimampianina has just over 15%.” Only a small portion of the polling stations has released results as of today. The article then goes on to explain that if no candidate receives 50% of the votes, a runoff election will be held.

            The use of a runoff election in democracy is discussed in Mueller Chapter 7 along with other alternatives to the simple majority rule. In majority rule with a runoff, if no candidate receives a majority, the top two candidates with the most votes compete to reach a majority. The importance of the runoff method lies in that it is decisive and picks a winner. This winner might not always be a Condorcet winner, but studies have shown that when there are two candidates, the probability of a Condorcet winner is 100% and given a high number of candidates, runoff elections result in a Condorcet winner still around 60% of the time. In this election, there are around 30 approved candidates in the running, which means that even if there are two front-runners, votes given to the other candidates could be enough to warrant a runoff. Because of the reliability of a majority rule with a runoff, hopefully a Condorcet winner can restore political stability to Madagascar.