I'm going to assume that everyone who reads this thread and replies to it at least has some basic knowledge about what Rational Choice Theory is. If you do not feel free to look it up or PM me about it, but I have enough typing to do as it it so I ain't going to explain it again.
The Voting Paradox
I'll explain this briefly for those who don't know it.
Let's assume for a moment that people behave rational, in an economic sense, all the time (Hence RCT). The basic assumption here is that a voter will act like a homo oeconomicus (acts rational).
Now let's look at voting: If a voter is a homo oeconomicus that means that he will vote when the gains outweigh the costs (as is a basic principle of economics and being rational)
I'll put it like this: R=p*B-C
Where
R stands for the result (to go and vote or to not go -stay home-)
p stands for the chance that your vote makes the crucial difference
B stands for the difference in gain when the government you want comes to power
C stands for the costs made by going to vote
Take a look at the Costs (C):
* Before the elections:
- Gathering Information (reading papers, watching the news and so forth): granted some ppl do this even when there are no elections coming so this is a small cost for those people (Again take in mind that it would not be rational to go vote without having enough information)
- Registering to a voting list (especially in the US this one applies)
* During the elections:
- Movement costs: you have to get to the voting station
- Opportunity costs: you could stay home and watch football on TV or go to work and make money...
Now the Gains (p*B):
* The difference between candidates (B):
- Only one party (former soviet republics): your vote has no effect
- parties with similar programs: which ever party wins it makes little difference
- parties with very different programs: big difference depending on who wins
* The chance of your vote being the crucial one (p):
- With two parties and 3 voters: you have a 50% chance of being the all deciding voter
- With two parties and 9 voters: you have a 27% chance
- With two parties and 101 voters: you have 8% chance
Meaning in a normal election P is almost 0
When P is almost 0 that makes p*B (the Gains remember) almost 0
so that makes R=p*B-C < 0 (If C>0)
Which comes to the conclusion: The Rational voters stay home!
Now seeing as this is certainly not the case in almost every country in the world.
Why is this the case:
A) Rational Choice Theory is plain wrong (I don't buy that)
B) The formula is incorrect we should an extra element called 'D'. If you think so then please give me your idea on what 'D' is
C) People behave irrational, which is doubtful when economic models who use the same basic principles work.
So this is one of the things I had to study today and wanted to share.
I'd be amazed if this thing gets more than 5 decent replies, but hey I felt like sharing so!
__________________ Be smart, be cool, be sexy = be LIBERAL!
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Now, here's my opinion. The formula is flawed. It is too simple...many factors are missing. The Joy one gets from voting and participating in politics. The hapiness one feels having voted. There are a lot of reasons why one want to vote. Then there's another problem, a rational being that thinks along those lines will also think....but if I do that all other rational beings will do that too, and since rational beings (just cause they are rational like me) wlll vote as I do my party would lose so all rational beings should vote ergo I will vote.
There's really a lot more to it than this. Pretty funny theory though. (Oh by the way all humans are rational, it's just that rational is not always the same.
I didn't get your last sentence. But there is indeed a part about the fact that if everyone thinks like that (rationaly not going to vote, the one that comes up with it first and goes voting anyway will decide everything. Has to do with Game theory)
Your first suggestion is the adding of a new element: most commonly used way to adapt the voting paradox
__________________ Be smart, be cool, be sexy = be LIBERAL!
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Yeah, it's pretty cool....although I find it a little to well simple , as I said before. It makes no sense to me how one can assume that those three figures are all ther is to human decisions.
My Last statement was just saying that what you think is rational migt not be rational too me. That's another flaw...the rational they are talkign aboot its rather subjective.
the adding of one new element won't cut it though. I believe that all humans base their decisions on rational thoughts (or what they take to be rational), but the process of decision making is so complex...there are probably several hundred or more variables that have to be considered.
As for the "first to vote" well I don't think that he is that important...but the behaviour of all other voters is a figure that has to be taken into account, which is why this Theory is fated to fail right away. I like the genereal Idea of it though. Who made it?
This is really just a very complex way of pointing out that one vote has very little effect.
The rational people vote anyway because they know that if everyone felt like that, nothing would ever get done.
That your vote on its own is only one amongst many is a basic principle understood by everyone who votes, so I am not sure why we need to make such a mathematical fuss about it.
It's not a paradox unless you make the assumption that people only vote because they think their vote alone will make the difference. That is an error, hence there is no paradox.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Jan 18th, 2006 at 07:10 PM
That and that homo economicus is highly questionable, of course. The only people that think that people react irrationally to the ultimatum game are economics students.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
I agree with you that this Formula is useless....but I do like the idea to put human decisions in mathematical bounds. It could maybe be done. That's why I find it fascinating.
Wow it seems to have some effect. As Bardock I too think the thing is flawed but it still is an interesting theory in my opinion. I'm gonna see if I can take an elective about it next year.
__________________ Be smart, be cool, be sexy = be LIBERAL!
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
I read the thread, didn't know any of this before, but I find it interesting.
I think what happens is that people act rational sometimes and irrational other times. When an election is close to a person’s heart, or they are affected by the result in a way that is clear to the person, then they will act rationally. However, if the election is distant or abstract to the person and the outcome has no immediate affect, they often times act irrationally. This is because they are influenced by outside information that has no barring on their lives.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 18th, 2006 03:28 PM
