A reader of this blog asked:
You list “voting is useless because all politicians lie anyway”. I’d be interested to see a post explaining why this is a misconception.
I don’t often get annoyed with my students. I know this is hard to believe if you’ve been reading my blog for a while but I’m the picture of patience and an unadulterated good mood in the classroom. I vent on the blog, which enables me to come into the classroom with no pent-up irritation. But there is a number of statements that my students make that really bug me. “Voting is useless” is one of them.
One reason I find this annoying is that my 18-year-old students who haven’t had a chance to vote for anybody yet could not have possibly arrived at this disillusionment with voting on their own. They are just repeating this boring platitude after adults who are disillusioned with life and feel powerless in their relationship with the world. It’s sad to see young kids condemn themselves to the same kind of impotence for no reason other than being surrounded by cynical adults.
The “world is big and scary and I’m little and insignificant” attitude tells us nothing about the surrounding reality. It does, however, tell us a lot about the psychological issues of the person making the statement. The childish petulance of people who believe that “all politicians lie, so how can I possibly make any sense of anything?” betrays the kind of immaturity that is frustrated by the complexity of the world.
Yes, politicians lie and political activism is hard. Transforming the world is not easy. Arriving at one’s own worldview and making sense of a multitude of political and economic issues is a pain in the lower back. It is much easier to excuse one’s apathy and ignorance by the dismissal of the entire political process as being flawed beyond redemption.
Clarissa's Blog 
The reason why voting is a waste of time from the point of view of an investment decision is because in large populations, the individual vote is completely indecisive. Let me explain. The return to a vote (R) is the net benefit to the voter of his candidate winning as against the opponent (B) times the probability that his vote is decisive (P) minus the cost of voting (C):
Since in presidential elections the probability that one’s vote is decisive is around one in a million, that means that BP is tiny, usually less than a red cent. C is largert than that, so for investment purposes voting is irrational for most individuals. Because roughly one half of the electorate votes in presidential elections, there must be a consumption factor in voting (D). But if all that matters is voters going to the polls they may as well pull the lever at random (rational ignorance).
There in a nutshell is the public choice justification for saying that voting, at least as an investment, is irrational.
LikeLike
Yes. I’ve heard about the cost/ benefit ratio and statistical arguments before. Here’s another example which goes into it at more length.
http://thekevindolan.com/2009/06/kevin-shows-that-voting-is-pointless/index.html
One has to remember that in 2000 the Bush/Gore election was decided by 600 voters in Florida.
LikeLike
Naturally, a vote in the presidential elections carries less weight than a local vote, but then you use these figures to justify a blanket statement such as “voting is useless”. This is false as many local elections are near ties, and hence your vote can very well be the difference maker.
Even at a national level, your vote indicates strength of mandate. One of the reasons Reagan was so effective in his second term was his drubbing of Mondale in the midterm elections.
LikeLike
It betrays a very simplistic and childish view of the world: “just because I don’t get my every wish I declare it useless”. Compare the effects of Clinton’s policies with those of George Bush (the idiot) to see how much a difference it can make.
LikeLike
Democracy requires two things: candidates and voters.
Voting is quite useless if only one candidate is running for an office. In elections for state legislatures and local offices, it is not unusual for a strong incumbent to run unopposed. Or sometimes an incumbent or a favored new candidate has only token opposition because the challenger is unknown, unfunded, or fails to actively campaign. Even in U.S. Congressional elections, it’s not unusual for the opponent to be little more than a sacrificial lamb because congressional districts have been so skillfully gerrymandered as to virtually assure reelection of incumbents.
In order for an election to be meaningful, voters must be presented with at least two viable choices.
Many believe that VOTING is a civic responsibility. People need to realize that RUNNING for office is also a civic responsibility. The most serious problem facing our democratic system is not too few voters, but too few candidates.
LikeLike
This is a good point, John, thank you for making it.
LikeLike