Incentives for Political Office
Rational choice theory in political science has made much of the fact
that it is seemingly irrational to vote in a large-scale
election. This is because the probability that your single vote
will determine the outcome is generally very close to zero, while the
act of voting entails some small but real costs. Even in a close
election like Florida in 2000, an individual’s vote would really
“count” only if the margin of victory was exactly one vote.
I wonder if we couldn’t improve the political system by actually
associating individual votes with real value. One way to do this
would be to tie the financial compensation an elected official receives
with the number of votes received in the most recent election.
Another way would be to do the same with some element of political
authority. For example, the Congressional two-thirds majority
currently needed to override a Presidential veto could be increased or
decreased as a function of the percentage of the popular or electoral
college votes the President received. Using electoral college
votes as an example, George W. Bush won in 2000 with only about 50%,
whereas Ronald Reagan won in 1984 with nearly 98%. Using this
number in place of the standard two-thirds would give greater force to
what is usually called a “popular mandate.” The President who
wins with overwhelming popular support would actually be given greater
control over national policy, albeit within limits. Putting this
type of mechanism in place would benefit voters by giving political
officials an incentive to work for votes beyond the threshold (usually
50%) required to enter office.
Ry
July 12, 2004 @ 8:08 pm
I’ve never read your site before, so pardon me for starting off with a negative:
but isn’t your “count” (in those gnarly quotation marks) a very liberal use of the word. I understand exactly what you mean and I have trouble using logic around it — it’s very hard to argue that my vote means anything. Except that it does. 1 vote is 1 vote, it may not be the winning vote but there’s no way to say that it isn’t. There are, because every vote is equal, no winning votes, there are last votes, first votes and votes in between, but every one vote on the side of the majority is a winning vote, or, more precisely, a contributing vote.
Indeed, the very point our constitutional system is that no one person has incredible power.
I think the decline in voter turnout has little to do with a logic about what counts or doesn’t, but with a general apathy. Of all the democratic (or democratic-republican) countries, we are right smack next to the Federate States of Micronesia on the voter-turnout list. This isn’t because of our system, or a logic, but because of a mood (be it uninspiring candidates, lack of patriotism, a good deal of cynicism, or not having a universal holiday for voting).
I’m also not sure that your proposal of increasing the power to voters is good idea. It might, in the short term, turnout more voters, but in the long term it will lead to increased corruption. Voters already have the power to give their ideas more weight than just the president’s office, in local, legislative, gubernatorial, and congressional elections.
robert thornton
August 22, 2004 @ 11:37 pm
To increase participation in elections I would propose changing ballots to allow voters to vote against a candidate thereby subtacting a vote from his total. This would allow voters, most of whom are probably voting against a candidate by voting for his opponent, to actually indicate how they feel. Candidates would be selected just as a referendum. For or against Bush; For or against Kerry. In this way the people would really be heard.