3 ms·

Voting is an aggregate activity. When you think of it as an individualist activity, as an economist would, you fail to see it for what it is -- an aggregate. I

by tarkin2 18y ago

Voting is an aggregate activity. When you think of it as an individualist activity, as an economist would, you fail to see it for what it is -- an aggregate. Imagine if you are in a line of people passing bricks from a collapsed building to another location. If you looked at this activity from an individual's perspective you'd said, "Passing this brick to that other person isn't clearing the rubble." And you'd be right. It's not. But then you are not the activity in entirety; you are only part of the activity. And because this activity is social, it depends on human behavior. This attitude, then, falls under the category of the fallacy of composition: what's rational for one actor is not rational if everyone does the same. Voting is not an individual activity, it's a group activity and looking at it as if it's a individual activity belies that. When you analyze group activities as if they're individual activities you get erroneous conclusions. I can see why Taleb gets annoyed with economists now.

ryporter 18y ago
In your scenario, if I don't pass along my brick, then the chain is broken (or, others at least have to do more work). However, in an election, if I don't vote, then no one has to pick up my slack. We'll still elect a president tomorrow. What is the negative externality that I'm imposing on others by not voting? If anything, I see it as a (very small) positive externality, because I'm letting everyone else decide who they want as president.
- tarkin2 18y ago
  The brick example was used to shed light upon the difference between individual and group activities. It's does not match the activity of voting, I know. However... Your use of the phrase "imposing on others" is telling. It implies you are separate from the others who vote, but in a democracy, during voting, you are not. You are all part of one system, and you all work towards the democratic task. When you choose not to vote, you exclude yourself from that system. One single absence will indeed not damage the system significantly enough to destroy it. But, as I said, this system replies on human behavior, and more specifically socialization. When you post articles on the New York Times website, when you post here and when you chat to friends about the futility of voting and when you tell them you have not voted you affect them; you influence them. Human behavior is incredible herd-like. Your choice not to vote affects others, others affect others, and that affects, in this case detrimentally, the democratic system. And this, again, goes back to the fallacy of composition. It was rational for you not to vote. Yet, because you live in society, that decision affects others, and when it affects enough people that newly formed decision becomes highly irrational.
  - ryporter 18y ago
    You're right. I do see myself as separate from others who vote. If I vote, am I working together with a voter who just wants to restrict gay rights? What about a racist who won't vote for Obama because he's black? These are extreme examples, but I just don't see the election as a task that we're all collaborating on. Second, are we discussing my decision to vote, or my public announcement of that decision? Am I damaging the democratic system by publicly questioning whether to vote?
- tdoggette 18y ago
  Here is a better analogy: You're in a crowd of people, all passing bricks, one at a time, in a general direction. If you fail to pass a brick, someone near you will get it anyway. However, as fewer people decide to pass bricks, the outcome of clearing all of the rubble will become less likely.
jfornear 18y ago
If they were to argue: Your vote doesn't count. Therefore, everyone's vote doesn't count. ...it would qualify as a fallacy of composition. This conclusion is not included in their argument.
decode 18y ago
Here's one way I see it, expressed as a syllogism: 1. Democracy works best when every individual votes. 2. I am an individual. 3. Democracy works best when I vote. Here's another way I see it, expressed by some German guy: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
- tc 18y ago
  A better syllogism: major premise: A democratic republic works best when the democratic system elects non-tyrants; that is, leaders who will not violate the inherent rights of even the 49% of the people who did not vote for them. minor premise: Both old party presidential candidates propose schemes which use government force to commit active injustice against non-consenting peaceful citizens. conclusion: Unless you are going to vote for a third party candidate, or go to the polls and not vote to indicate your preference for 'none of the above,' by voting you are in effect sanctioning all of the harms the candidate you elect will unleash on the world. You are also, by voting for a major party candidate, sanctioning the system that gives you only the sort of narrow choices that we have this year: on the one side, a warmonger who is a reluctant but willing socialist, and on the other, a socialist who is a reluctant but willing warmonger.

by tarkin2 18y ago

ryporter 18y ago

In your scenario, if I don't pass along my brick, then the chain is broken (or, others at least have to do more work). However, in an election, if I don't vote, then no one has to pick up my slack. We'll still elect a president tomorrow. What is the negative externality that I'm imposing on others by not voting? If anything, I see it as a (very small) positive externality, because I'm letting everyone else decide who they want as president.

tarkin2 18y ago
The brick example was used to shed light upon the difference between individual and group activities. It's does not match the activity of voting, I know. However... Your use of the phrase "imposing on others" is telling. It implies you are separate from the others who vote, but in a democracy, during voting, you are not. You are all part of one system, and you all work towards the democratic task. When you choose not to vote, you exclude yourself from that system. One single absence will indeed not damage the system significantly enough to destroy it. But, as I said, this system replies on human behavior, and more specifically socialization. When you post articles on the New York Times website, when you post here and when you chat to friends about the futility of voting and when you tell them you have not voted you affect them; you influence them. Human behavior is incredible herd-like. Your choice not to vote affects others, others affect others, and that affects, in this case detrimentally, the democratic system. And this, again, goes back to the fallacy of composition. It was rational for you not to vote. Yet, because you live in society, that decision affects others, and when it affects enough people that newly formed decision becomes highly irrational.
- ryporter 18y ago
  You're right. I do see myself as separate from others who vote. If I vote, am I working together with a voter who just wants to restrict gay rights? What about a racist who won't vote for Obama because he's black? These are extreme examples, but I just don't see the election as a task that we're all collaborating on. Second, are we discussing my decision to vote, or my public announcement of that decision? Am I damaging the democratic system by publicly questioning whether to vote?
tdoggette 18y ago
Here is a better analogy: You're in a crowd of people, all passing bricks, one at a time, in a general direction. If you fail to pass a brick, someone near you will get it anyway. However, as fewer people decide to pass bricks, the outcome of clearing all of the rubble will become less likely.

jfornear 18y ago

If they were to argue: Your vote doesn't count. Therefore, everyone's vote doesn't count. ...it would qualify as a fallacy of composition. This conclusion is not included in their argument.

decode 18y ago

Here's one way I see it, expressed as a syllogism: 1. Democracy works best when every individual votes. 2. I am an individual. 3. Democracy works best when I vote. Here's another way I see it, expressed by some German guy: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

tc 18y ago
A better syllogism: major premise: A democratic republic works best when the democratic system elects non-tyrants; that is, leaders who will not violate the inherent rights of even the 49% of the people who did not vote for them. minor premise: Both old party presidential candidates propose schemes which use government force to commit active injustice against non-consenting peaceful citizens. conclusion: Unless you are going to vote for a third party candidate, or go to the polls and not vote to indicate your preference for 'none of the above,' by voting you are in effect sanctioning all of the harms the candidate you elect will unleash on the world. You are also, by voting for a major party candidate, sanctioning the system that gives you only the sort of narrow choices that we have this year: on the one side, a warmonger who is a reluctant but willing socialist, and on the other, a socialist who is a reluctant but willing warmonger.