The voting thing has long fascinated me. My preference is for compulsory voting, with very modest penalties for failure to vote. Spoiled or write in candidates should be allowed – I don’t suggest anyone should be forced to vote for one of a limited number of candidates.
The economists approach you describe is very rational – summed up as since my vote will almost certainly make no difference why bother?
You then correctly say that people vote for reasons other than this as we do not usually apply strict utilitarian principles in all areas of life. This begs the question because we could argue why we don’t do that – simply pointing out that we do not does not explain why we should do this. However, my reading is that you suggest that this other reason is that they have convictions that one candidate represents that they wish to support. Therefore a “peg on the nose” vote does not fit with either a belief in changing the outcome, nor with supporting a particular set of principles. I may have expressed this badly or incorrectly, but that is roughly what I thought you were saying. This is an elegant argument but I think it misses the “other reason” people vote.
I think it is a belief in the principle of elections rather than a support for particular views. The belief is that an election should represent as much as possible the will of the people about the choice before them. Arrow showed we cannot do this perfectly that does not mean we should abandon the attempt. This belief requires that people generally express their preference between the candidates on the ballot.
This is a Prisoner’s Dilemma type situation. Cooperation is the only way to maximise outcome and cooperation in this instance is voting. The system only works if we convince most people to cooperate, even though individuals suffer a small loss by doing so compared to defecting.
The mechanisms used currently in most places rely on “They died in the war for this right. It is your duty” sort of arguments. I believe that a more rational approach to life would in general be a good thing and therefore encouraging even more emotional appeals of this type should not be the way to go. Compulsory voting enforces cooperation.
Therefore, compulsory voting is the only system I can think of that gets the benefits of democracy whilst preserving rationality.
An example, if we have a country with 60% rational economists and 40% raving loonies. The economists don’t vote, so the Government is chosen by the raving loonies. Compulsory voting solves this problem as all economists now vote. Surely you would agree the outcome is preferable (of the choices I have given you)*?
I am applying the idea that Churchill espoused: “Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time” (House of Commons, 1947).
*Especially since economists are sure to agree on the best candidate. Maybe economists were not the best example.
“An example, if we have a country with 60% rational economists and 40% raving loonies. The economists don’t vote, so the Government is chosen by the raving loonies. Compulsory voting solves this problem as all economists now vote. Surely you would agree the outcome is preferable (of the choices I have given you)*?”
I wouldn’t agree to that. For one, the problem with the state is not who is running it. The problem is the state itself. For two, adding yet another way where people are forced to do something against their will because people like you prefer it is making the system even more immoral. For three, it makes it less clear that the state doesn’t represent the will of the people considering how few people bother voting. For four, I find the idea of forcing me to vote for someone to steal my money, and threatening to steal my money if I refuse, to be repulsive enough that’d I’d refuse to vote and refuse to pay any fine and if they threw me in jail I’d go on a hunger strike. It’s bad enough that these monsters drop bombs on children with impunity, but to force me to participate in their immoral system is something I won’t do.
I did say “of the choices I have given you”, which means election by loonies or election by economists and loonies.
It is possible that election by loonies would lead to collapse of the system and you might have an opportunity to establish your preferred system from the ruins, but that is a bit speculative. The State is a given for now.
” For four, I find the idea of forcing me to vote for someone to steal my money, ”
I did make it clear you don’t have to actually vote for anybody – you can spoil your vote or write in a candidate and register your disapproval that way. If a great many people feel the same way there will be so may spoiled votes the system will lack legitimacy. In this way your spoiled vote indicates a positive expression of disapproval. Simply not voting could be mistaken for apathy.
My argument is essentially utilitarian – compulsory voting has better outcomes. We have discussed this here before and apart from MF, pretty much everyone includes a utilitarian element in their way of thinking.
“I did say “of the choices I have given you”, which means election by loonies or election by economists and loonies.”
Yes, and I explained why I didn’t think that outcome was preferable.
“I did make it clear you don’t have to actually vote for anybody – you can spoil your vote or write in a candidate and register your disapproval that way.”
And? I don’t want to participate at all. I’d prefer you mind your own business, don’t threaten me if I don’t want to play your game, keep your hands out of my pocket, and act like a civilized human being.
“My argument is essentially utilitarian – compulsory voting has better outcomes. We have discussed this here before and apart from MF, pretty much everyone includes a utilitarian element in their way of thinking.”
You’re simply mistaken if you think MF is the only principled libertarian. You can read the discussion on this blog where Dr. Murphy makes the case that he’d oppose taxing people to stop an asteroid on principal, for example. A position the libertarians on here almost all agree with. Sure, there are libertarians that are utilitarians, but it’s not remotely the universal position. It’s certainly not my position. I not only disagree with your argument on utilitarian grounds, I find threatening people to vote, or else, is immoral behavior that’d I’d oppose on principle, even if I had happened to agree with you on utilitarian grounds.
My proposal is based on principles that others may disagree with, so there are bound to be objections. It was not intended as an unassailable “gotcha” position, but explains why I think such a system would lead to a better Government. If you think that the costs of better Government is outweighed by the personal transgressions, then you are entitled to your position. I cannot say you are wrong, just that we have different values.
“You’re simply mistaken if you think MF is the only principled libertarian.”
I would say dogmatic rather than principled. MF is the only person I have seen not reject complete shut down of industry to prevent trespass of CO2 or photons onto private property. Everyone else (so far) wriggles out of that and many other discussions with some form of utilitarian argument or just does not address the issue.
“If you think that the costs of better Government is outweighed by the personal transgressions, then you are entitled to your position. I cannot say you are wrong, just that we have different values.“
Harold, I don’t know why communicating with you is always so difficult. I’m explicitly saying that your proposal doesn’t make better government and it is immoral. I don’t agree with you on any of it. None of it. I think you’re completely wrong in every way. I don’t think anything you’re arguing is correct on top of it being extremely immoral and cowardly. It is wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. I’m saying I don’t agree with you at all. I’m saying your stated position is not correct because it is wrong. Wrong.
“I would say dogmatic rather than principled.”
Well, you say a lot of things that are wrong, so what’s new?
All valid arguments but you want to look into the Australian experience, to get some reality into you before pushing those arguments too hard.
It’s impossible to force someone to vote unless you also do away with the secret ballot (which would immediately open the door to bribery and intimidation). So the best they can do, in practice, is force people to show up on the day. About 5% of Australian citizens in a typical election will vote for None of the Above, which is counted (and published) as “informal” voting. Depicted genetalia are presumed to also belong to None of the Above.
Some religious groups want to make a point about not showing up, the Australian government gives them some lighthearted harrassment (asking for a reason each time) but they have given up attempting to fine these people.
It is legal to campaign for None of the Above, provided you don’t deploy trickery and run afoul of election fraud laws. To the best of my knowledge, None of the Above has never won an election, but there’s always a first time.
“So the best they can do, in practice, is force people to show up on the day.”
That is all I was trying to achieve. The rational economist, on arrival at the ballot will decide that the cost of not voting no longer outweighs the benefits, since effectively there are no costs. The principled non-voter will not vote, which is exactly as it should be.
My understanding is that the economists claim a zero marginal gain from voting on the basis that your vote never makes a difference, therefore even the time spent filling in the form is wasted.
It’s worse than that, because some non-trivial research effort is required to even know who the candidates are and what they stand for. You can force people to show up on the day, but you can’t force them to put reasonable time and study into knowing the issues that they are deciding. Then you get people winning because they have honest eyebrows or a nice sounding name that’s easy to remember.
Mostly in Australia we find ourselves getting extremely bland candidates when bad news makes a bigger impression than good news. This result is exploited by extremely negative campaign advertising routinely delivered by people who say they would never stoop so low as negative campaigning. I’m working so hard to avoid words like “opportunistic grifters” but that does keep coming to mind. There’s always been the rumour that such hollow men (as they are called here) really get controlled from behind the scenes, but you know, digging out the connections is itself a big effort, no one can be bothered.
Then you get voters who are anchored to a party, and don’t care who the candidate is, what this person has done, or even whether the party still stands for something similar to what they once stood for. It’s efficient, in terms of minimal thinking involved, but the party very quickly takes such people for granted.
Tel
The economists point is not that your vote will never change the election, just that is very unlikely to do so. I think the costs of bothering to put an X on a piece of paper (or whatever) are small enough to be similar to this chance, or that even a lost election with a smaller margin is sending a message that has some value. I am also nit arguing for total rationality but rather an increase rather than a decrease.
Your other points are valid but more about elections in general. Compulsory voting could work both ways, but I think the benefits are greater. There has been much discussion in the US about motivating the base and getting out the vote. This has led in some instances to negative campaigning and fear mongering. I don’t see compulsory voting making this worse.
Harold, you could at least offer to pay for your proposal. Although I’m guessing that it would cost more than you have. So much government, so little money.
Harold, I want you to pay for the enforcement of compulsory voting. That is, to keep track of everyone who should have voted but didn’t, and make sure they pay the penalty for not voting. There would be a substantial cost for doing that, as I’m sure that you’re aware. But if it’s important to you then you should be willing to pay for it without forcing anyone else to help you pay for it.
Harold, I understand where you’re coming from wanting everyone to vote, but I’m not convinced that voting results in better governance. I’d much rather everyone decide for themselves, and only for themselves.
The argument for increasing voter participation as a good seems to depend on one of two arguments.
1. Current non-voters will select better candidates than the current voters do
2. Even if 1 is untrue, at the very least, candidates selected will be more “representative” of the populace, which is an inherent good in and of itself.
I think Bob has dealt with 1 on Twitter sufficiently. All I’ll add here is that it may be plausibly true to support this line of thought in very specific cases wherein you strongly favor a certain form of policy, and you happen to notice that groups who tend to vote overwhelmingly for those policies also happen to have very low turnout rates. (i.e. if it happened to be the case that red-haired people voted 90% for the libertarian party, but also only had a 10% turnout rate, it would make sense for libertarians specifically to believe that compulsory voting may result in “better” politicians being elected)
2 seems superficially plausible, but I’d still doubt it. It’s already not very costly to go vote. Registering takes minutes, showing up and doing it maybe a half hour at most (and most employers will excuse you from work to do so).
The relevant question is, should a weak preference be considered the full equivalent of a strong preference. People who vote under the current system can be thought to have a strong preference. They are willing to jump through some small hoops to express it. People who don’t currently vote, but might vote in a serious manner if it were compulsory, should be considered to have a weak preference. They’ll vote, but only if the cost is virtually nothing.
But people have weak preferences for a reason. They might be uninformed on the issues. They might be almost wholly neutral and undecided. Will forcing such people to make a decision result in better outcomes? I don’t think we can assume it would.
Matt and Bob.
matts points
Why would compulsory voting lead to better governance?
1) It is certainly an argument that if the rational don’t vote and the irrational do there would be a worse outcome. I don’t know if this is happening at the moment but it certainly could.
2) The government would need to target the whole population. Currently in the UK there is a “triple lock” on pensions, which has meant pensions rising faster than wages. This may or may not be a good thing but is believed that this is because old people vote more than young people. Government can target policy at those who vote.
In general, the main reason is to avoid the paradox of voting. I would like to promote a society of largely rational people. I would also like to preserve democracy. Compulsory voting does both but I cannot think of other arguments that do both since voting is largely irrational for the individual.
Societies need some way to encourage cooperation because otherwise the selfish will always out-compete the cooperative. However cooperative groups will out compete selfish groups. It is therefore rational for the group to encourage cooperation. It is not a valid argument that groups do not have goals because most individuals within the cooperating group will do better with cooperation.
It is as if in a Prisoner’s Dilemma game of 1000 rounds you got together beforehand and agree on cooperation. Both parties gain.
Thus we build a working democracy on rational foundations.
Harold, I’m not trolling: Especially if you are going to allow them to vote for Mickey Mouse, why do you think there will be better governance if you force everyone to vote? Why do you assume that the people who choose not to vote have better judgment than the people who choose to vote? Shouldn’t that be the other way around, in your worldview?
Maybe the criterion for being a raving loony and therefore being banned from voting is turning up at the polling station? That way we ensure that those too irrational to realise voting is pointless don’t get to exercise their irrational preferences.
It’s funny you say that because, in the scenario you proposed, that criterion would have a 100% success rate.
For the record, I don’t think voting is pointless. I look at it like most other government services. I think we’d be better off without it but, given that it already exists and we’re all compelled to pay for it, I grudgingly make use of it.
More serious response: I believe that the “raving loonies” outnumber everyone else. If I am right, then any attempt to increase voter turnout is likely counterproductive.
A: This country is such a mess because all of you people voted for the crazy loonies who don’t understand economics!
B: What? I voted for the economists!
A: Exactly!
The voting thing has long fascinated me. My preference is for compulsory voting, with very modest penalties for failure to vote. Spoiled or write in candidates should be allowed – I don’t suggest anyone should be forced to vote for one of a limited number of candidates.
The economists approach you describe is very rational – summed up as since my vote will almost certainly make no difference why bother?
You then correctly say that people vote for reasons other than this as we do not usually apply strict utilitarian principles in all areas of life. This begs the question because we could argue why we don’t do that – simply pointing out that we do not does not explain why we should do this. However, my reading is that you suggest that this other reason is that they have convictions that one candidate represents that they wish to support. Therefore a “peg on the nose” vote does not fit with either a belief in changing the outcome, nor with supporting a particular set of principles. I may have expressed this badly or incorrectly, but that is roughly what I thought you were saying. This is an elegant argument but I think it misses the “other reason” people vote.
I think it is a belief in the principle of elections rather than a support for particular views. The belief is that an election should represent as much as possible the will of the people about the choice before them. Arrow showed we cannot do this perfectly that does not mean we should abandon the attempt. This belief requires that people generally express their preference between the candidates on the ballot.
This is a Prisoner’s Dilemma type situation. Cooperation is the only way to maximise outcome and cooperation in this instance is voting. The system only works if we convince most people to cooperate, even though individuals suffer a small loss by doing so compared to defecting.
The mechanisms used currently in most places rely on “They died in the war for this right. It is your duty” sort of arguments. I believe that a more rational approach to life would in general be a good thing and therefore encouraging even more emotional appeals of this type should not be the way to go. Compulsory voting enforces cooperation.
Therefore, compulsory voting is the only system I can think of that gets the benefits of democracy whilst preserving rationality.
An example, if we have a country with 60% rational economists and 40% raving loonies. The economists don’t vote, so the Government is chosen by the raving loonies. Compulsory voting solves this problem as all economists now vote. Surely you would agree the outcome is preferable (of the choices I have given you)*?
I am applying the idea that Churchill espoused: “Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time” (House of Commons, 1947).
*Especially since economists are sure to agree on the best candidate. Maybe economists were not the best example.
“An example, if we have a country with 60% rational economists and 40% raving loonies. The economists don’t vote, so the Government is chosen by the raving loonies. Compulsory voting solves this problem as all economists now vote. Surely you would agree the outcome is preferable (of the choices I have given you)*?”
I wouldn’t agree to that. For one, the problem with the state is not who is running it. The problem is the state itself. For two, adding yet another way where people are forced to do something against their will because people like you prefer it is making the system even more immoral. For three, it makes it less clear that the state doesn’t represent the will of the people considering how few people bother voting. For four, I find the idea of forcing me to vote for someone to steal my money, and threatening to steal my money if I refuse, to be repulsive enough that’d I’d refuse to vote and refuse to pay any fine and if they threw me in jail I’d go on a hunger strike. It’s bad enough that these monsters drop bombs on children with impunity, but to force me to participate in their immoral system is something I won’t do.
I did say “of the choices I have given you”, which means election by loonies or election by economists and loonies.
It is possible that election by loonies would lead to collapse of the system and you might have an opportunity to establish your preferred system from the ruins, but that is a bit speculative. The State is a given for now.
” For four, I find the idea of forcing me to vote for someone to steal my money, ”
I did make it clear you don’t have to actually vote for anybody – you can spoil your vote or write in a candidate and register your disapproval that way. If a great many people feel the same way there will be so may spoiled votes the system will lack legitimacy. In this way your spoiled vote indicates a positive expression of disapproval. Simply not voting could be mistaken for apathy.
My argument is essentially utilitarian – compulsory voting has better outcomes. We have discussed this here before and apart from MF, pretty much everyone includes a utilitarian element in their way of thinking.
“I did say “of the choices I have given you”, which means election by loonies or election by economists and loonies.”
Yes, and I explained why I didn’t think that outcome was preferable.
“I did make it clear you don’t have to actually vote for anybody – you can spoil your vote or write in a candidate and register your disapproval that way.”
And? I don’t want to participate at all. I’d prefer you mind your own business, don’t threaten me if I don’t want to play your game, keep your hands out of my pocket, and act like a civilized human being.
“My argument is essentially utilitarian – compulsory voting has better outcomes. We have discussed this here before and apart from MF, pretty much everyone includes a utilitarian element in their way of thinking.”
You’re simply mistaken if you think MF is the only principled libertarian. You can read the discussion on this blog where Dr. Murphy makes the case that he’d oppose taxing people to stop an asteroid on principal, for example. A position the libertarians on here almost all agree with. Sure, there are libertarians that are utilitarians, but it’s not remotely the universal position. It’s certainly not my position. I not only disagree with your argument on utilitarian grounds, I find threatening people to vote, or else, is immoral behavior that’d I’d oppose on principle, even if I had happened to agree with you on utilitarian grounds.
My proposal is based on principles that others may disagree with, so there are bound to be objections. It was not intended as an unassailable “gotcha” position, but explains why I think such a system would lead to a better Government. If you think that the costs of better Government is outweighed by the personal transgressions, then you are entitled to your position. I cannot say you are wrong, just that we have different values.
“You’re simply mistaken if you think MF is the only principled libertarian.”
I would say dogmatic rather than principled. MF is the only person I have seen not reject complete shut down of industry to prevent trespass of CO2 or photons onto private property. Everyone else (so far) wriggles out of that and many other discussions with some form of utilitarian argument or just does not address the issue.
“If you think that the costs of better Government is outweighed by the personal transgressions, then you are entitled to your position. I cannot say you are wrong, just that we have different values.“
Harold, I don’t know why communicating with you is always so difficult. I’m explicitly saying that your proposal doesn’t make better government and it is immoral. I don’t agree with you on any of it. None of it. I think you’re completely wrong in every way. I don’t think anything you’re arguing is correct on top of it being extremely immoral and cowardly. It is wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. I’m saying I don’t agree with you at all. I’m saying your stated position is not correct because it is wrong. Wrong.
“I would say dogmatic rather than principled.”
Well, you say a lot of things that are wrong, so what’s new?
Lets get this straight, you think I am wrong. Right?
If that is what you think then just say so!
All valid arguments but you want to look into the Australian experience, to get some reality into you before pushing those arguments too hard.
It’s impossible to force someone to vote unless you also do away with the secret ballot (which would immediately open the door to bribery and intimidation). So the best they can do, in practice, is force people to show up on the day. About 5% of Australian citizens in a typical election will vote for None of the Above, which is counted (and published) as “informal” voting. Depicted genetalia are presumed to also belong to None of the Above.
Some religious groups want to make a point about not showing up, the Australian government gives them some lighthearted harrassment (asking for a reason each time) but they have given up attempting to fine these people.
It is legal to campaign for None of the Above, provided you don’t deploy trickery and run afoul of election fraud laws. To the best of my knowledge, None of the Above has never won an election, but there’s always a first time.
“So the best they can do, in practice, is force people to show up on the day.”
That is all I was trying to achieve. The rational economist, on arrival at the ballot will decide that the cost of not voting no longer outweighs the benefits, since effectively there are no costs. The principled non-voter will not vote, which is exactly as it should be.
My understanding is that the economists claim a zero marginal gain from voting on the basis that your vote never makes a difference, therefore even the time spent filling in the form is wasted.
It’s worse than that, because some non-trivial research effort is required to even know who the candidates are and what they stand for. You can force people to show up on the day, but you can’t force them to put reasonable time and study into knowing the issues that they are deciding. Then you get people winning because they have honest eyebrows or a nice sounding name that’s easy to remember.
Mostly in Australia we find ourselves getting extremely bland candidates when bad news makes a bigger impression than good news. This result is exploited by extremely negative campaign advertising routinely delivered by people who say they would never stoop so low as negative campaigning. I’m working so hard to avoid words like “opportunistic grifters” but that does keep coming to mind. There’s always been the rumour that such hollow men (as they are called here) really get controlled from behind the scenes, but you know, digging out the connections is itself a big effort, no one can be bothered.
Then you get voters who are anchored to a party, and don’t care who the candidate is, what this person has done, or even whether the party still stands for something similar to what they once stood for. It’s efficient, in terms of minimal thinking involved, but the party very quickly takes such people for granted.
Tel
The economists point is not that your vote will never change the election, just that is very unlikely to do so. I think the costs of bothering to put an X on a piece of paper (or whatever) are small enough to be similar to this chance, or that even a lost election with a smaller margin is sending a message that has some value. I am also nit arguing for total rationality but rather an increase rather than a decrease.
Your other points are valid but more about elections in general. Compulsory voting could work both ways, but I think the benefits are greater. There has been much discussion in the US about motivating the base and getting out the vote. This has led in some instances to negative campaigning and fear mongering. I don’t see compulsory voting making this worse.
Harold, you could at least offer to pay for your proposal. Although I’m guessing that it would cost more than you have. So much government, so little money.
steve, you want me to personally pay for the whole election process?
Harold, I want you to pay for the enforcement of compulsory voting. That is, to keep track of everyone who should have voted but didn’t, and make sure they pay the penalty for not voting. There would be a substantial cost for doing that, as I’m sure that you’re aware. But if it’s important to you then you should be willing to pay for it without forcing anyone else to help you pay for it.
Yes, OK. I will pay it out of the benefits obtained from better governance which I would like to come to me.
Harold, I understand where you’re coming from wanting everyone to vote, but I’m not convinced that voting results in better governance. I’d much rather everyone decide for themselves, and only for themselves.
Agree with steve.
The argument for increasing voter participation as a good seems to depend on one of two arguments.
1. Current non-voters will select better candidates than the current voters do
2. Even if 1 is untrue, at the very least, candidates selected will be more “representative” of the populace, which is an inherent good in and of itself.
I think Bob has dealt with 1 on Twitter sufficiently. All I’ll add here is that it may be plausibly true to support this line of thought in very specific cases wherein you strongly favor a certain form of policy, and you happen to notice that groups who tend to vote overwhelmingly for those policies also happen to have very low turnout rates. (i.e. if it happened to be the case that red-haired people voted 90% for the libertarian party, but also only had a 10% turnout rate, it would make sense for libertarians specifically to believe that compulsory voting may result in “better” politicians being elected)
2 seems superficially plausible, but I’d still doubt it. It’s already not very costly to go vote. Registering takes minutes, showing up and doing it maybe a half hour at most (and most employers will excuse you from work to do so).
The relevant question is, should a weak preference be considered the full equivalent of a strong preference. People who vote under the current system can be thought to have a strong preference. They are willing to jump through some small hoops to express it. People who don’t currently vote, but might vote in a serious manner if it were compulsory, should be considered to have a weak preference. They’ll vote, but only if the cost is virtually nothing.
But people have weak preferences for a reason. They might be uninformed on the issues. They might be almost wholly neutral and undecided. Will forcing such people to make a decision result in better outcomes? I don’t think we can assume it would.
Matt and Bob.
matts points
Why would compulsory voting lead to better governance?
1) It is certainly an argument that if the rational don’t vote and the irrational do there would be a worse outcome. I don’t know if this is happening at the moment but it certainly could.
2) The government would need to target the whole population. Currently in the UK there is a “triple lock” on pensions, which has meant pensions rising faster than wages. This may or may not be a good thing but is believed that this is because old people vote more than young people. Government can target policy at those who vote.
In general, the main reason is to avoid the paradox of voting. I would like to promote a society of largely rational people. I would also like to preserve democracy. Compulsory voting does both but I cannot think of other arguments that do both since voting is largely irrational for the individual.
Societies need some way to encourage cooperation because otherwise the selfish will always out-compete the cooperative. However cooperative groups will out compete selfish groups. It is therefore rational for the group to encourage cooperation. It is not a valid argument that groups do not have goals because most individuals within the cooperating group will do better with cooperation.
It is as if in a Prisoner’s Dilemma game of 1000 rounds you got together beforehand and agree on cooperation. Both parties gain.
Thus we build a working democracy on rational foundations.
Harold, I’m not trolling: Especially if you are going to allow them to vote for Mickey Mouse, why do you think there will be better governance if you force everyone to vote? Why do you assume that the people who choose not to vote have better judgment than the people who choose to vote? Shouldn’t that be the other way around, in your worldview?
Instead, let’s make it illegal for raving loonies to vote.
“Ah,” you say, “but it would be very difficult to devise a fail-safe test for identifying raving loonies!”
And I agree, so let’s outlaw voting entirely just to be on the safe side.
Andrew, you sound slightly cynical!
Maybe the criterion for being a raving loony and therefore being banned from voting is turning up at the polling station? That way we ensure that those too irrational to realise voting is pointless don’t get to exercise their irrational preferences.
It’s funny you say that because, in the scenario you proposed, that criterion would have a 100% success rate.
For the record, I don’t think voting is pointless. I look at it like most other government services. I think we’d be better off without it but, given that it already exists and we’re all compelled to pay for it, I grudgingly make use of it.
More serious response: I believe that the “raving loonies” outnumber everyone else. If I am right, then any attempt to increase voter turnout is likely counterproductive.
Another way to express that last incidental point is that my Venn diagram of Loonies and Economists should perhaps have a large area of overlap.
A: This country is such a mess because all of you people voted for the crazy loonies who don’t understand economics!
B: What? I voted for the economists!
A: Exactly!
Never trust a guy who considers himself rational.