@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:Levitt is being an ass in this article. It is one thing to say, correctly, that voting is a pure public good, and that all its benefits go to society as a whole rather than to the individual voter. But it's quite another to say that the act of voting therefore violates some kind of ethical norm. Yet that's what Levitt suggests with his anecdote about economists being embarrassed when caught voting.
I have absolutely no idea how you get all of
that out of the article but it seems to hinge on the misplaced notion that the only thing one can be embarrassed about is to violate some kind of "ethical norm". However, I have not ever seen any economist argue that voting violates any kind of ethical norm (they come closer to arguing the exact opposite), but rather that it may violate one's policy against wasting their time. They also almost invariably point out that in many democracies voting is itself treated as a social norm and that there is sometimes significant peer pressure in society to vote.
Another economist, whose name I don't recall right now summarized this point of view I took from these arguments succinctly when he said (paraphrased): you have better odds of improving society by buying a lottery ticket on society's behalf than by voting. I agree with that assessment and reject what I see as inordinate social pressure to vote (some go so far as to say it's an
obligation).
Quote:Here is a valid reason why voting should embarrass Levitt: Economists traditionally model individual behavior as motivated by rational egoism. The act of voting, where rational people act in the general interest, proves there are limits to this model. The proper response for economists, then, should be to find better models for individual behavior, models that include a conscience. Instead, Levitt tries to find everything else: Stupidity, ulterior motives, you name it. He seems to go out of his way to avoid admitting that humans want to promote each others' welfare. This denial of empirical reality, this refusal to update a refuted theory, should embarrass Levitt as an economist. His decision to vote is fine.
What a convoluted way to try to dictate the terms of Levitt's fictional economist's embarrassment.
I think you miss their point and don't give them credit for understanding the difference between what is rational for the individual versus what is rational for society. In many of these arguments I've read they go so far as to state that their selfishness with their time is contingent on others voting (e.g. the "if everyone thought that way" counter-argument they sometimes cite makes that clear).
The way I see it is that it may be more economical to try to convince other people to vote/not vote than to do so yourself (but again, nothing ethically wrong with voting if you have the time and inclination) and that if people don't want to vote it's not quite the abdication of civic duties that some make it out to be.
