How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. – Adam Smith The Theory of Moral Sentiments I.I.1

Last week, four of the Bereans at the Gate revealed their preference (if any) between the presidential candidates for this November’s election and provided rationale for their choice. Jeff Haymond gave his reasons for voting for the Constitution Party’s presidential candidate. Central to Jeff’s post is the notion that my vote is such a small fraction of the votes cast in my state that I really should not bother to vote. My individual vote cannot have an effect on the outcome of the election (Voting Schmoting). I have seen many arguments discussing and analyzing the rationality of voting. Because the costs of becoming educated about issues (high) must be balanced with the expected pay off from voting (low) rational behavior dictates that I should not vote and in fact voting betrays a certain irrationality. “I mean voter, are you ignorant or just stupid?” In his post, Jeff explains how our individual votes are an expression of our political preferences. He states unequivocally that our individual votes do matter and that it is very important to vote.

What if you would have really liked Bernie Sanders to be president? Because Bernie lost the primary, he is not the Democratic Party’s nominee. To express your political preference, you can vote for the Green Party nominee, who is politically left of the Democratic Party nominee. Your “expressive vote” will send a message to the Democratic Party that they need to move to the left to appeal to your preferences. Of course, you are still just one voter. I like Jeff’s logic and think he makes a very good argument. I would like to discuss further the sentiments exemplified in the “Voting Schmoting” video.

Arguments that question the rationality of voting utilize a very simple definition of rationality. It is a definition that is necessary for the application and use of mathematics to provide the veneer and the illusion of science. Rational behavior is when I take an action that maximizes benefits net of costs. In mainstream economics, utility or satisfaction is maximized in an analysis of personal choice. Because utility cannot clearly be measured, we often use money as a proxy. When we apply this analysis to voting we would only vote if the expected benefits (which are extremely small – the probability of my vote affecting the election is extremely small – division in the video) exceed the costs (which are relatively high).

Adam Smith wrote two popular books. The quote at the beginning of this blog post is the first sentence of The Theory of Moral Sentiments published about 17 years before his better-known An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. In this opening sentence of TMS Smith is saying that people often act in ways that help others even when they get no benefit from that action. In other words, the costs exceed the benefits. According to Smith, it is very rational to behave irrationally (given the simple definition of rationality in the above paragraph). Or, human action is much more complex than can be modeled mathematically.

One reason that people vote is because they feel themselves part of something bigger than themselves. They feel part of a group, of a community. They know their individual votes add up to more than their single vote when considered with respect to their community or group. I have talked to some people who feel part of the Republican Party. This camaraderie is a determining factor in the way they vote. They do not benefit directly financially, but rather their voting is on the basis of working with other individuals in the group to achieve a goal. When all Republicans vote consistent with Republican principles, the individual votes aggregate into something very important. I have heard some people who believe that God is doing something very specific and particular in the United States. They believe that Donald Trump is much more likely to appoint a successor to Supreme Court justice Anthony Scalia who will strictly interpret the Constitution. In their view, Supreme Court justices who are likely to make rulings based on their own understanding of justice rather than strictly interpreting the constitution are very harmful. By voting with others, they hope to help determine that the next president will appoint Supreme Court justices who are strict constitutionalists. In response to last week’s Berean “How Are We Going to Vote and Why” series, several people commented they vote because they believe it is their duty and the right thing to do. Not because they’re going to personally benefit from voting (in a strict cost-benefit analysis). The “Voting Schmoting” video itself gave the reason of upholding democracy by voting. There are many different and good reasons why we vote, voting itself is not irrational.