Despite higher opportunity costs, wealthier voters consistently show up at the polls at a higher rate—a paradox that reveals a deeper economic rationale behind voting.
I wonder if with the advent of new technologies, mainly smart phones, these costs are diminishing. You can do a significant amount while getting to a poll/waiting in line.
Would be interesting to see a historic rate of voting the rich.
Voting isn't a cost/benefit analysis on the actual power of my vote. It is an opportunity to be a. patriotic, b. part of a collective / tribe / team, c. tell politicians they are doing well or poorly based on the intensity of the vote for / against them, d. and finally, the contradiction to my point: real laws (ballot measures, state constitutional amendments). For people who vote in states where the other party tends to win vs their own choice of party, we know we are going to lose most votes, but we still want to encourage our own party to keep going because there are people who believe in them.
That still doesn't really answer the paradox, just that people might have a strong preference for a candidate. People don't decide on a "collective impact." Some have tried to show the math works even if your vote has an extremely small chance of being decisive, but it doesn't seem very plausible with realistic assumptions about policy. Expressive voting seems to make more sense.
I wonder if with the advent of new technologies, mainly smart phones, these costs are diminishing. You can do a significant amount while getting to a poll/waiting in line.
Would be interesting to see a historic rate of voting the rich.
Voting isn't a cost/benefit analysis on the actual power of my vote. It is an opportunity to be a. patriotic, b. part of a collective / tribe / team, c. tell politicians they are doing well or poorly based on the intensity of the vote for / against them, d. and finally, the contradiction to my point: real laws (ballot measures, state constitutional amendments). For people who vote in states where the other party tends to win vs their own choice of party, we know we are going to lose most votes, but we still want to encourage our own party to keep going because there are people who believe in them.
And as always, Jadrian, very nice post.
That still doesn't really answer the paradox, just that people might have a strong preference for a candidate. People don't decide on a "collective impact." Some have tried to show the math works even if your vote has an extremely small chance of being decisive, but it doesn't seem very plausible with realistic assumptions about policy. Expressive voting seems to make more sense.