Both are interesting thoughts, which raise an economics point. If there's a test to vote, then potential voters would presumably study to pass it. That means they're not doing other things, such as spending time with friends and family, or exercising, or learning a trade, or working and producing wealth. Given the vanishingly low marginal benefit of any given vote, is it efficient to demand that 200 million people give up their time in order to pass the test? Demand curves slope downward, of course, and if we raise the cost of voting we can expect less of it. Fine by me, but I wonder if that was Chris' intention. Besides, who designs the test? Who gets to determine what the "basics" are. If I had my way, only those who demonstrate an understanding of basic economics would be allowed to vote. Should logrolling and public choice critiques be on the test, or is it sufficient that one knows who, say, George Washington is?
Re: Gabby's point. Of course, learning about the candidates and their positions takes an awful lot of time. If rational people make decisions at the margins, and make decisions based on the marginal costs and benefits of an act, what does economics say about taking time to study up on political candidates?
7 comments:
in the end studying the candidates would be moot since the electoral college votes for the president not the citizens.
"If I had my way, only those who demonstrate an understanding of basic economics would be allowed to vote."
Libertarians would win every time
Grafton, do you know how the voting system works? Each state gets a certain number of "electoral votes" and those combined determines the president..so the citizens do, in fact, vote for the president. That is the whole "red" "blue" state on the maps.
Newburn, clear up this whole electoral voting thing
I researched it a little, but it's really confusing
From what I learned, citizens vote for "electors" which vote for president?
ughhhh
As far as the question posed in this post, I would say that economics suggests that the cost of taking the time to study up on candidates would outweigh the benefits. So, would it be a rational decision for me to wait four more years to care about politics?
Alli gets it right re: Electoral College. Each state gets a certain amount of electoral votes (the number of its Representatives plus the number of its Senators). After the election, each state sends its slate of electors to vote for President. TECHNICALLY (and really only technically) each elector is free to vote for whomever he or she wants. However, states send electors who are reasonably certain to cast their ballots for the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. So, yes, voters do matter in the presidential election.
The relevant economics question is: what is the marginal benefit of an individual's vote, and does the marginal cost outweigh the marginal benefit?
Economics says that the cost of taking the time to study the candidates is not worth the benefit of voting??
Post a Comment