What the Electoral Commission’s attempt to boost turnout gets wrong about voting, and what we can learn from it.

As is customary in the run-up to an election, there is some hand-wringing going on about what turnout is going to be like. It was almost 78% in 2014, which in many countries, such as Canada or the United States, would be considered sky-high, but is sometimes regarded as worryingly low in New Zealand. And the Electoral Commission is doing its part in trying to encourage people to vote, among other things by publishing this sleek video that recently showed up in my Facebook feed (and by using other ads based on the same theme).

The trouble, as I see it, is that, if you think about it for a second, the video’s true message about voting is precisely the opposite of the one it is intended to convey.

We “vote every day”, we are told: for snoozing or getting up; for dirty or clean underwear (that one, I suppose, is of particular relevance to politics); for whether to be a nice person or a not-so-nice one; and for a whole lot of other things. And it follows, apparently, that we should also vote in the election (or those entitled to do so should, anyway―I am not, since I’m not yet a permanent resident). In other words, according to the Electoral Commission, voting for a party and a candidate to represent you in Parliament is just like making one of those everyday decisions that you are used to making, well, every day. Except, of course, that it isn’t, and in a number of ways.

Perhaps most obviously, if done with a modicum of seriousness, voting in a election is a good deal harder than deciding whether to hit the snooze button or to get up already. (I’ll call this sort of decision-making “voting”, as opposed to voting.) Voting requires one to acquire substantial amounts of information about the candidates and their platforms, about the world and the ways in which the candidates’ proposals fit or do not fit with what we know about it, and ideally also about how the electoral process itself works. (Another video from the Electoral Commission cheerfully showcases the voters’ utter ignorance about the latter point, as if equanimity were the appropriate response to it.) Relatively few people are well informed voters, and even some, perhaps quite a few, of those who are not at least realize that they have work to do in order to become at least somewhat knowledgeable ― though many will never do that work, for reasons to which I’ll presently return. And quite apart from informational difficulties, voting requires one to ponder incommensurable values (do vote, say, for the candidate with the better tax policy or the one more likely to respect the constitution?). By contrast, one doesn’t need to work very hard to “vote”. “Voters” typically have all the information they need from personal experience, and the values at stake are also less abstract and easier to sort out.

The second crucial difference between voting and “voting” is that the “voters” are the ones who live with the consequences of their decisions, whereas voters are not. If you keep on dirty underwear, you are the one who stinks. If you haven’t had occasion to learn that in the past, there’s a reasonable chance that you will learn now. By contrast, if you vote to keep a lousy politician in office, most (and perhaps all) of the cost of that vote (however small a fraction of the total cost is attributable to an individual vote) is absorbed by others. You may even profit from your bad decision, either because the politician rewards his or her supporters at the expense of the community as a whole, or simply because voting in that way gave you a satisfaction that is greater than the costs that vote imposes on you―though again the costs to the community as a whole are substantial.

Moreover, it is often difficult to trace bad outcomes to bad votes, or good outcomes to good ones. The difficulty is sometimes subjective―a voter who doesn’t understand a modicum of economics will not be able to tell that relative impoverishment resulted from the protectionist policies he or she supported. But it is often objective. Policy is complex, and it is difficult even for knowledgeable people to link causes with effects with much certainty. As a result, voters do not learn from the consequences of their decisions in the way “voters” do.

In short, voting and “voting” are rather different activities, and just because we do a lot of the latter, and do it reasonably well, it doesn’t follow that we should do the former, or that we can do it with any competence. We “vote” well enough because each “vote” is (usually) a relatively straightforward decision and, even when it is not, we have strong incentives to learn enough, and to be objective enough, to decide well, because we are the ones living with the consequences of the decision. These reasons don’t apply to voting, which involves complex decisions and trade-offs that are difficult enough to manage even for unbiased and well-informed decision-makers―but we lack the incentives to be either of these two things because we do not in a meaningful way bear the consequences of our votes.

Of course, I have no idea whether the Electoral Commission will be successful at persuading people to go to the polls despite the faulty premises underlying its ad campaign. But if it does, this will, I am afraid, be an additional reason to distrust voters, who let themselves be fooled by what is really a well put-together effort at misdirection. Rather, the message we should take from the ad is the one that Ilya Somin delivers in his book Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government Is Smarter: the more decisions we can make by “voting” rather than voting, the better off we will be. Whoever wins this week’s election should really think about that, rather than fret about turnout rates. Don’t worry though: I won’t be holding my breath.

Comments (2)

by Peter Grant on September 20, 2017
Peter Grant

I rather think you are over thinking this for us mere mortals !

by Dennis Frank on September 21, 2017
Dennis Frank

Regardless whether the Electoral Commission members see themselves as agents of the state, ain't no surprise to see their behaviour as guided by statism.  Democracy being the ideology within which states must manufacture consent in order to govern.  Inducing a sense of duty in young voters is therefore rational - if one believes that our antiquated public modus operandi are viable in the new millennium.

Which I don't.  The Greens have sought devolution of state power for decades.  Empowering local communities in the economic context of bioregions is the way to catalyse a sustainable society.  We can retain the state for overall guidance on matters of common interest, but I agree we must progress towards a smaller state.

Also, use of consumer choice theory to persuade voters that choosing to vote is in their best interests is rational as long as folks remain in denial of the failure of neoliberalism.  Public servants ought to support popular delusions - Hitler couldn't have risen to supreme power without them.  Rationality used to maintain collective hallucinations in public life seems unwise.  Irrational, even.

Post new comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.