I wonder whether there is a day without an election somewhere in the world. Recently, there were parliamentary elections in Japan, Bulgaria, Georgia and Botswana, while this week the Americans will choose a new president. In 2024 more than hundred countries will have elections, and approximately half of the world population will be involved. This only concerns elections of national importance. If we add regional and local elections, I guess that on average there’ll be at least one election a day this year, if not many more.
Elections are supposed to measure the opinions of the people and to designate who should represent them in the political institutions. However, as everybody knows, not all elections are free and fair. They are often manipulated. In some countries, those in power will do everything, legally or illegally, to stay in power, for example by influencing the voting behaviour and the choices of the voters before they cast their votes, so that they’ll vote “in the right way”; or, if necessary, such rulers will manipulate the election results. Didn’t Stalin say that it is not important how people vote; but who counts the votes?
Even if elections are free and fair, what then determines how the voters will vote and whether they’ll vote, anyway? Voting should be a rational choice: Carefully, weighing the pros and cons of all candidates for a function (president, parliamentarian, etc.) or of a certain question in a referendum, before making a choice. However, it seldom happens that way. Take, for example, this case, discussed by Kahneman (Thinking, Fast and Slow, p. 55): “A study of voting patterns in precincts of Arizona in 2000 showed that the support for propositions to increase the fundings of schools was significantly greater when the polling station was in a school than when it was in a nearby location.” So, where you cast your vote matters, which seems not very rational. In dictatorships, one way of manipulating election results is hanging images of the “Dear Leader” everywhere (and not those of opposing candidates, of course). It shows that “Big Brother is Watching you”, and in this way it pushes your vote in the desired direction (so that the dictator needs not to apply Stalin’s rule, which might be risky).
However, what is a rational voter? In his “The paradox of voting” Aaron Steelman says it this way: “According to the rational-choice perspective, a potential voter should make the following calculation. Multiply the benefits (B) he would receive if his preferred candidate were to win the election by the probability (P) that he would cast the deciding vote. If that figure exceeds the costs (C) he incurs — the time it takes to register to vote and go to the polling place, as well as the effort required to become well enough acquainted with the candidates’ positions to cast an informed vote — then voting is rational. The voter gets more out of the act than he puts in.” Leaving aside that it is almost impossible to calculate (B), (P) and (C) in a reliable way, casting your vote based on such a calculation may be rational, but is it reasonable to expect that voters determine their voting behaviour this way? The paradox of voting tells us that for a rational voter the result of the calculation is always negative, so he or she should not vote. Nevertheless, many people who are rational vote. Why? In the first place, so Steelman, even if it is not rational to vote according to the rational-choice model, “that doesn’t mean that it is without merit. [It predicts] that people will vote in higher numbers when the stakes are high and/or the election is close. … Turnout increases when voters’ B and P values increase.” However, even then the contribution of each voter to the election result is so small, that a single vote does not affect the result. Nevertheless, people vote, so apparently there is more at stake than making a rational choice in the sense of the rational-choice theory.
In fact, people vote for all kinds of other reasons; reasons not based on the rational-choice theory but certainly not irrational or unreasonable. Some feel obliged to vote. Voting belongs to good citizenship. Moreover, which is partly the same, the rational-choice theory supposes that people are individualistic and egoistic, but both suppositions are not true. Humans are social beings and they are also altruistic (at least partly). Belonging to a group belongs to being human. Therefore, so the Wikipedia, “voters … perceive a benefit if others are benefited. Since an election affects many others, it could still be rational to cast a vote with only a small chance of affecting the outcome.” Third, people want to belong to a group and want to show this. Voting is a way to express this belongingness. By your voting choice you show that you are a person of such and such kind. Taking part in the election meetings of a certain party has the same effect. It shows that you are one of “them” and that you have similar views.
How then to vote? Weighing the pros and cons of all candidates or parties or of the issue at stake would be best and most rational, but most people simply lack the time for it. Instead, many people look what candidates and parties did in the past, often only in outline for also now it can take yet too much time to study the political behaviour in detail. In this way, you determine your choice, and often people stay voting for a certain candidate or party for years, unless they have reasons to change.
Voting should be rational and individualistic, so the idea is, in the sense that your choice should be your choice. However, in practice, choices are often based on habit and social adaption. This seems paradoxical, but often it is the most rational you can do in view of your realistic possibilities.
