This week we read To Vote or Not to Vote? The Merits and Limits of Rational Choice Theory by Andre Blais for my Political Participation class. Basically, Blais is trying to figure out why we vote.
According to Anthony Downs, citizens engage in a "calculus of voting" model when deciding whether or not to vote. This model says that a citizen will decide to vote if the benefits of voting outweigh the costs. However, if the costs of voting outweigh the benefits, then the citizen will not vote. The expected benefits are those that the citizen would presumably gain if his/her desired candidate wins the election or just the benefits that the citizen gains by simply casting a vote. The costs of voting include the time it takes to register, go to the polls, and obtain information to be an informed voter. According to the rational choice model, citizens must also consider the probability that they will cast the deciding vote in an election. So when deciding to vote, a rational citizen considers the costs, benefits, and the probability that he/she will cast the deciding vote.
This is the paradox of voting: The probability that citizens will cast the deciding vote is extremely small, yet many people still vote. According to rational choice theory, rational actors would not vote. Many scholars have tinkered with the rational choice model and contributed their amendments to the theory. Blais starts with the notion that rational choice inadequately explains why people vote.
Blais explores where, when, and which people vote. Drawing on cross national data, Blais finds that voter turnout is linked to economic development, literacy, population, number of parties, and electoral system. Turnout in national elections is higher than in local elections, and turnout is higher when elections are close. Turnout increases as economic development and literacy increases. Blais also finds turnout to be higher in small, densely populated countries and in countries with proportional representation. He also finds that as the number of political parties in a country increases, voter turnout decreases. Blais moves on to explore voters themselves. He finds that voters do not overestimate their vote, and they do not think that they are casting a decisive vote. Instead, many talk about voting as a sense of duty. Blais finds that this sense of civic duty is stronger among women, as well as older and more religious persons. Finally, Blais finds that the costs of voting are considered to be minimal.
I enjoyed reading this book, but I had two problems with it. This is what we do as political scientists: We read the literature and then look for the flaws. All right, here goes. Blais looks at the number of political parties and their competitiveness to determine their impact on voter turnout. I would have liked it if he had looked at the scope of the parties. According to Blais, we should have a pretty high turnout rate since we have only two political parties. However, this is not the case, especially compared to other countries. Blais finds that turnout is lower when the number of parties increases because voters are overwhelmed with the number of choices, but in the US case the parties are so broad that we seem to lack choices.
My second problem with Blais concerns his methodology- how he went about conducting his research. When he looked at the costs of voting, he surveyed students and voters. This is problematic because we would assume that the costs of voting are going to be low for those who actually vote. Surveying students is also problematic because we know that income and education are linked to voting; hence, costs would also be minimal to this group. It would have been interesting to explore whether or not the costs of voting prevent some from casting a vote.
According to Anthony Downs, citizens engage in a "calculus of voting" model when deciding whether or not to vote. This model says that a citizen will decide to vote if the benefits of voting outweigh the costs. However, if the costs of voting outweigh the benefits, then the citizen will not vote. The expected benefits are those that the citizen would presumably gain if his/her desired candidate wins the election or just the benefits that the citizen gains by simply casting a vote. The costs of voting include the time it takes to register, go to the polls, and obtain information to be an informed voter. According to the rational choice model, citizens must also consider the probability that they will cast the deciding vote in an election. So when deciding to vote, a rational citizen considers the costs, benefits, and the probability that he/she will cast the deciding vote.
This is the paradox of voting: The probability that citizens will cast the deciding vote is extremely small, yet many people still vote. According to rational choice theory, rational actors would not vote. Many scholars have tinkered with the rational choice model and contributed their amendments to the theory. Blais starts with the notion that rational choice inadequately explains why people vote.
Blais explores where, when, and which people vote. Drawing on cross national data, Blais finds that voter turnout is linked to economic development, literacy, population, number of parties, and electoral system. Turnout in national elections is higher than in local elections, and turnout is higher when elections are close. Turnout increases as economic development and literacy increases. Blais also finds turnout to be higher in small, densely populated countries and in countries with proportional representation. He also finds that as the number of political parties in a country increases, voter turnout decreases. Blais moves on to explore voters themselves. He finds that voters do not overestimate their vote, and they do not think that they are casting a decisive vote. Instead, many talk about voting as a sense of duty. Blais finds that this sense of civic duty is stronger among women, as well as older and more religious persons. Finally, Blais finds that the costs of voting are considered to be minimal.
I enjoyed reading this book, but I had two problems with it. This is what we do as political scientists: We read the literature and then look for the flaws. All right, here goes. Blais looks at the number of political parties and their competitiveness to determine their impact on voter turnout. I would have liked it if he had looked at the scope of the parties. According to Blais, we should have a pretty high turnout rate since we have only two political parties. However, this is not the case, especially compared to other countries. Blais finds that turnout is lower when the number of parties increases because voters are overwhelmed with the number of choices, but in the US case the parties are so broad that we seem to lack choices.
My second problem with Blais concerns his methodology- how he went about conducting his research. When he looked at the costs of voting, he surveyed students and voters. This is problematic because we would assume that the costs of voting are going to be low for those who actually vote. Surveying students is also problematic because we know that income and education are linked to voting; hence, costs would also be minimal to this group. It would have been interesting to explore whether or not the costs of voting prevent some from casting a vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment