Updated Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Overview of "The Ethics and Rationality of Voting"

Written by Georgetown Prof. Jason Brennan.

(NA)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has published an updated and expanded version of its entry on "The Ethics and Rationality of Voting." It is authored by Georgetown Prof. Jason Brennan, a leading expert on democratic theory. Here is his summary of the issues covered:

This entry focuses on six major questions concerning the rationality and morality of voting:

1. Is it rational for an individual citizen to vote?
2. Is there a moral duty to vote?
3. Are there moral obligations regarding how citizens vote?
4. Is it justifiable for governments to compel citizens to vote?
5. Is it permissible to buy, trade, and sell votes?
6. Who ought to have the right to vote, and should every citizen have an equal vote?

The article is a great summary of debates over these issues, and review of relevant literature. To me, it is striking how much of the debate over all six issues turns at least in part on the problem of voter ignorance. For example, whether and to what extent people have a duty to vote depends in significant part on whether they can do so in an informed manner. Similarly, many current and proposed limitations on voting rights are justified by political knowledge considerations (e.g. - this is the standard rationale for barring children, and for requiring immigrants to pass a test of political knowledge to become citizens - one most native-born citizens would fail if they had to take it without studying.

I have long argued that voter ignorance is a major challenge for democracy and democratic theory, and recent events indicate the problem is even more severe than I previously thought. There is no easy and quick solution. But I I assess a range of possible options in a recent book chapter on "Top-Down and Bottom-Up Solutions to the Problem of Political Ignorance," and in my book Democracy and Political Ignorance.

Comments

[Roger S]

So the immigrant law professor who is irrationally Marxist-Libertarian in his posts lectures us on rational voting again.

[Lee Moore]

1. ”May the voter vote selfishly, or should she vote sociotropically?” (I think “sociotropically” is intended to mean “with a view to the general interest.”)

The difficulty of each voter computing the general interest is discussed in a different section. It was interesting to me – though not apparently interesting to the author - that this selfish / “sociotropic” question is directly linked to the computational problem. The average voter is well accustomed to making incalculable calculations of value, incorporating both monetary and non monetary factors – he (or she) does so on every visit to the grocery store or the movies, and on every date with a new gal / guy / sheep.

And every voter knows perfectly well that his valuation of what a bunch of bananas will do for him is much more reliable than his valuation of what that same bunch of bananas will do for grandma. And likewise when grandma is valuing bananas intended for her grandson.

The general principle is that we are at our sharpest and best informed when valuing stuff for ourselves. Especially if we are also paying for it. And at our dullest and least well informed when valuing stuff for others. A fortiori when we don’t even know these others. And a fortiorissimo when the cash is coming out of someone else’s pocket.

Thus the problem of voter ignorance, like the problem of banana buyer ignorance, is more serious if the voter attempts to make “non local” computations of value. Which is to say that voting “in the public interest” as opposed to “in your own interest” necessarily and exponentially increases the baleful computational effects of “voter ignorance.”

Ilya should be all in on voting selfishly. But I expect he isn’t.

[Lee Moore]

2. In the section about “The Justice of Compulsory Voting” there are 697 words. The rather obvious question of, er, liberty, gets no more than a curt dismissal in 36 words :

“Rather than perceiving the compulsion as yet another unwelcome form of state coercion, compulsory voting may be better understood as a coordination necessity in mass societies of individual strangers unable to communicate and coordinate their preferences.”

3. Which brings me to my third point, which is that although the authors have obviously gone to a lot of trouble to assemble papers and summarize them, it’s not really very difficult to work out which side of the fence they’re on in each case.

4. Which brings me to my fourth, and penultimate, point. Which is that politics is not physics. Much of what passes for “ignorance” in Ilya’s jihad against political ignorance amounts to no more than the sin of failing to buy the soap that is being offered.

5. And so, fifthly and lastly, we should not be trying to emulate regimes which feel that it is important to protect the “ignorant” from unapproved sources of fact and opinion.

[Thought about __ all my life]

This is missing the boat. Education must be majorly at fault if you think you are making a logical argument accessible to the average would-be voter --- but it isn't.

2 of 3 Americans Wouldn't Pass U.S. Citizenship Test

U.S. News & World Report
https://www.usnews.com › News › Politics
Oct 12, 2018 — About two-thirds of Americans would not pass the test required to become a United States citizen, a new survey says.

Plus we have millions of non-citizens voting.
I think you are arguing about whether the fireman's outfit is attractive while LA burns.

[David Nieporent]

Plus we have millions of non-citizens voting.

Weird how nobody has been able to find them despite a desperate attempt to do so in order to discredit elections their side lost. I mean, one or two, sure. But "millions"?