tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2007509643610309350.post765885007035178503..comments2024-01-22T10:47:38.507+05:30Comments on As I Please: Elections, voter apathy and all thatRahul Basuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07751088048215388592noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2007509643610309350.post-46281701047200571402009-05-18T13:01:00.000+05:302009-05-18T13:01:00.000+05:30Thanks for the comments.
I agree with Abi that g...Thanks for the comments. <br /><br />I agree with Abi that gains and losses may be treated asymmetrically by voters (and decision makers generally). A good example of such an approach is ``Prospect Theory'' of Kahnemann and Tversky (the former won a Nobel for this some years ago; the latter didn't because he had died earlier). However my point remains that however you reckon your gains and losses, once you mulitply it by the infinitesimal probability of the event occurring, the expected benefit is very small and could well be overturned by very small costs. A very crude analogy might be the following: the consequences of being struck by a meteorite will be a catastrophic but the extremely low probability of such events means that we are unlikely to spend money and effort taking safety precautions for them.<br /><br />I think my argument holds even in the case that Arun discusses, that of ``close'' races. Suppose there are two candidates A and B and that each voter is an A or B voter with equal probability, drawn independently. By the Laws of Large Numbers etc, you must believe that this is an extremely close race. However the probability that the aggregate votes of all voters except a given voter, are exactly equal or differs by one, is infinitesimal. I think voters know this. Why? For instance, there is hardly any discussion in General Elections about what happens in case of a tie (in fact, I don't think most people know what is supposed to happen; I certainly don't). For elections with small numbers however, these things are important and widely known. For instance, in the Lok Sabha, the Speaker has a tie-breaking vote. Young Somnath Chatterjee was booted out of the CPM on this issue! As an aside, one of the most bizarre tie-breaking rules is used for meetings of the Board at University College, London. The stuffed, enbalmed body of the philosopher Jeremy Bentham is carried to these meetings; in case of a tie, his vote is recorded for the proposal which is the most radical departure from the status quo.<br /><br />AmOk says that some voters vote without any reference to payoff ``calculations''. This might happen in two ways, I suppose. One is that their decision to vote or abstain is idiosyncratic. This is not a bad thing because excessive calculation might convince then that voting is not worthwhile. On the other hand, they may vote for a random candidate. If large numbers of voters do this, we might get weird outcomes (large numbers of votes for unknown candidates) which we don't really observe.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18335623102694866146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2007509643610309350.post-11657330493094845102009-05-14T08:37:00.000+05:302009-05-14T08:37:00.000+05:30Thanks for that Rahul (aka OLO). There is one addi...Thanks for that Rahul (aka OLO). There is one additional random variable that must be accounted for here, i.e., the voting decision of the voter. Since this is often quite random and not necessarily aligned with the interests of the individual or group, not voting and voting would have approximately the same effect. So the important thing is to have your name on the voters' list. This you understand well.AmOKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17351322682932613136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2007509643610309350.post-51541483971683226272009-05-13T13:14:00.000+05:302009-05-13T13:14:00.000+05:30Rahul, I'd like to add my point-two-penny wisdom t...Rahul, I'd like to add my point-two-penny wisdom to this. Yes I agree that there are logical arguments for viting and abstaining as it is probably one of those undecidable logical questions. I have to point out one strategy that a muslim progressive group is following. Their party is contesting in four constituencies in TN, including Ramanathapuram. They did not join the coalition with DMK because they were not given enough seats.But in a bid to keep non-secular parties out at any cost, they are promoting and consolidating teh status of teh DMK member in Ramanathapuram. It is paradoxical and perhaps a joke to some that they are campaigning against their own candidate, but like I believe common logic may not answer such questions. <br />Also, I'd like to know why Barkha Dutt (read NDTV) is making such an ass of herself by going on with the hackeneyed "National" versus " Regional " party descriptions when everyone knows that Congress and BJP are regional parties themselves (only they are confined to the "National-language" belt!). The other aspect of this outdated thinking is that the south parties such as DMK PMK ADMK are referred to as non-ideology based , unlike the CPs, and hence they will move to the largest bidder. As arguments go - this is strange. It's another slavish feature of the english-speaking individuals that while they recognize Marx as an idealogue (and Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, and the Advani types) They have no thought of Periyar and Ambedkar, Muthulakshmi Reddy (just a sample, there are many more) and other important champions of dravidian liberation movements! It's quite ridiculous. I almost don't think there's any need to vote and maintain the democracy for the benefit of silly progress-faking journalists like the NDTV and co...Shubashreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04590544161689976057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2007509643610309350.post-85078951995839852972009-05-13T13:03:00.000+05:302009-05-13T13:03:00.000+05:30One simple question,
The power of a person's vote...One simple question,<br /><br />The power of a person's vote to affect the outcome of a poll is also dependent on the winning margin, right? That is to say, a vote may not make much difference in Amathi or Rae Bareli, but may create a much bigger difference in an poll where the margin of winning is, say: 100 or 500 votes. How do we account that in this calculation?Arunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08928334389251764916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2007509643610309350.post-33641464340837980222009-05-13T12:23:00.000+05:302009-05-13T12:23:00.000+05:30Interesting.
Where does the cost of *not voting*...Interesting. <br /><br />Where does the cost of *not voting* figure in this? I'm thinking about arguments like "The [party that shall not be named] is (almost) pure evil. It should not come to power. At Any Cost." <br /><br />Quite possibly, this would be clubbed together with "benefits" of voting. But, isn't there some (behavioral economics / psychology) evidence that perceptions of "potential benefits" and "potential harm" have an asymmetrical influence on people's choices / motivations / propensity to act?Abihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06790560045313883673noreply@blogger.com