Rational
Rational Choice Theory is a bit strange. I’ve never quite been happy with it since it models consumers as rational agents, and I think that, in most cases, Irrational Bastard Theory would probably work a lot better.
It is a method of analysing decisions, based on choosing the most favourable course of action given the factors affecting it. This process is known as maximising your utility. Utility is a wonderfully holistic concept of general good to the entity making the decision, including, but not limited to, cash, assets, health, happiness and resulting flux of ponies.
One of the simplest concepts thrown up by the rational choice worldview is that of a sunk cost, which is something you’ve done, lost the money (utility) for, and can’t do anything about. There are all kinds of examples about pre-booking films or indoor tennis courts and it later transpiring that something better is on offer, but my favourite example is one I dreamed up whilst having breakfast one morning. I got to the bottom of my bowl of Coco Pops and discovered there were a few remaining, rather soggy-looking, milky dregs. Yuk, I thought. However, I didn’t eat them; this is a sunk cost. The cereal had been ruined by being covered in milk, but sod the stiff British upper lip and “well, I’ve poured them, so I might as well eat them” attitude: the act of pouring was a sunk cost and now, since the cereal would bring me nothing but a deep-set feeling of ickiness, I left it. And so it should be, under the dictum of rational choice theory.
What you’ve paid for, be it a pre-booked cinema ticket or the remains of breakfast, is gone, and you should decide how to spend the rest of your life without worrying about it. And, in certain circumstances, I expect you’ll find disregarding previous actions when making a decision very hard to do.
One of the most interesting consequences of rational choice, however, is distinctly unsettling: it is actually irrational to vote. Consider the following premises:
- In the election in which you are voting, it is extremely unlikely that one party will beat another by one vote. (It is even less likely that the close-run parties include the one you voted for.)
- Your voting will not affect whether or how anyone else votes.
If you accept these, and think for a moment, you will reach the inescapable conclusion that it is utterly illogical to proceed to vote. Even if you widen them significantly and go voting with ten brainwashed friends, it won’t work; you simply aren’t going to make a difference.
Then, factor in the time and effort on polling day, and suddenly, voting doesn’t seem like quite such a good option. A huge amount of lost utility for an almost-certainly-zero gain. It doesn’t matter whether the party you vote for win or lose; unless it’s your vote that makes it, you’ve totally wasted your time. Already, staunch believers in democracy should be mildly unsettled.
You could try to argue that winning or losing by a different margin might affect things further down the line (come on…who actually pays proper attention to the detailed election statistics anyway?), or that it’s your duty as a citizen, or even that you won’t be up to much on polling day, and might quite enjoy popping your slip in the ballot box. The broad remit of utility demands that these factors be taken into account, and if you have a third premise that you feel outweighs the previous two, by all means go to vote. There’ll be no point, but it might increase your utility by making you happy.
This theory is rather unsettling. However, with the current electoral system and the near-certain truth of our axioms, I honestly don’t believe that there is a rational reason to vote.
But I might do it anyway. What good is democracy without voters? Suffragettes chained themselves to railings for this!
Or is that a sunk cost?
I can only conclude that Irrational Bastard Theory is the better model.
March 17th, 2005 at 11:43
Hello I’m a friend of Ruth’s. I don’t know who you are but I found a link to this article here. What you say is very interesting, and completely true, sadly.
I have one or two problems with it though, mainly stemming from your use of the word ‘rational’ but then my whole life is lived in opposition to the concept of ‘rational’ - that aside, I’d like to offer a few extra reasons to vote despite what you’ve said.
1.If your voting LibDem they’re in favour of proportional representation, which would remove some of the irrationality from this as this criticism only really works with ‘first past the post’ election system. If you vote for them they’re more likely to win and thereby introduce this system. Only one vote more likely to win mind, which your argument points out isn’t going to make a difference. but…
2.One person going to vote doesn’t encourage others to vote. However one person making your above argument could discourage several people from voting, and frequently does. I get the impression your not actually trying to do that with this post, but other people do use the same argument for that purpose. Or justify their reasons for not voting, which then persuades others not to.
3.A government’s mandate is important, whatever anyone says. If everyone had to vote and 2/3s voted for parties that didn’t win it would have some bearing on how they subsequently governed. Not because the General Public (spit) are well up on election stats but because pundits/journalists/opinion makers are. This affects subsequent elections, and how the elected government then proceeds. And whilst an individual voting may ‘rationally’ not be important, I doubt you’d say that the election result is similarly unimportant.
4.Apathy is a bad thing, voting is just a smal part in a wider political process. If people can be encouraged to vote in a general election there’s a chance they can be encouraged to, for example, participate in local politics where their individual voice can be heard more and affect decisions on a smaller level. I know the counter argument is that they could do that whether they voted or not, but that only really works 100% if you believe that people’s emotions play no part in this.
5.If no one who believe their party wouldn’t win voted then we’d probably only have a choice of two parties in this country. Then we’d find ourselves in a ‘flip the coin’ situation like in America.
6.“Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.” - Winston Churchill
You’re argument is completely correct of course. It’s just that if no one thought like that there’d be a lot more people actively involved in politics, which (hopefully) would mean more interest in what the government did, which in turn (hopefully) would mean they away with fewer awful policies like Privately Financed Hospitals.
Also to come back to ‘rational’; you could argue it’s not quite rational to actively participate in a system which hands control of part of your life to someone else in the first place.
rb.x
March 17th, 2005 at 12:31
Hello, I’m Statto. I went to school with JTA, which is how come Aberystwyth-type persons are aware of my existence.
Anyway…
I’m not sure whether I’ll vote or not. As I implied, my unsettled-democracy-advocate, knee-jerk reaction is that it is my duty as a citizen and I should.
However, I don’t disagree with rational choice theory - it defines “rational” as that course of action which will maximise your utility, so any decision you come to based upon proper application of it (which, given the ethereal nature of “utility”, might well be hard to come to) should be rational and the best you could do.
Particularly in this election, I feel that none of the parties we are choosing between really offer a credible alternative, so even if I were to be irrational and vote and my party win, I wouldn’t feel much gain in utility!
Similarly, I agree that perhaps this is part of a wider democratic process. Maybe my time, rationally, would be better spent campaigning than voting?
As for proportional representation, I’m afraid I still disagree with it: change the first premise above to “In the election in which you are voting, it is extremely unlikely that one party will gain an extra MP proportionally as a result of one vote. (It is even less likely that the close-run parties include the one you voted for.)” And then, factor in the disadvantage of PR, that we end up with multi-party, no-majority governments on a regular basis…I’m afraid I’m first past the post all the way!
April 17th, 2005 at 18:05
Who should you vote for? Allow me to tell you…