Talk:Paradox of voting

Obligation
Except in Brazil, where voting is not a question of wanting or not, but is compulsory. I'd probably never vote, otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.22.219.14 (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A completely different meaning of the term
There's an extensive body of work about the "paradox of voting" in the sense pioneered by Condorcet and developed by Duncan Black and Kenneth Arrow. As summarized here, the issue is "that there is no method of aggregating individual preferences over three or more alternatives that satisfies several conditions of fairness and always produces a logical result." See also and. I'll add a hatnote to Voting paradox but I'm not sure this is the best solution. JamesMLane t c 02:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The maths doesn't seem to add up. This article section is in need of serious cleap up or deletion.
I'm not so sure I can swallow such a declaration that the probability of any one voter's vote affecting an election's result is 1/n where n is the number of voters without all the underlying assumptions and derivation being demonstrated mathematically. I think the illusiontration in the article lacks credibility in due to the way the maths is presented. This can be added to the fact that there are no citations leading me to have concerns about the accuracy of the content (it looks like someone just made everything up with a whole bunch of hand waving). The Responses section seems a reaction to the bad maths presented in the illustration and probably wouldn't be necessary if it were either removed or corrected/proven.

--I (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I would like to point out that the paradox of voting only exists if the so-called 'rational' Homo economicus is assumed to be an accurate model of voters (or humans in general). I'd also like to point out that if the practice of signalling in game theory is taken into account there might even be scenarios where it makes sense for Homo economicus to vote, but that would probably be OR.

If rationally no-one would vote, it follows that you *should* vote, since no-one else will and hence you will decide the election yourself. But then it follows that everyone *should* vote, in which case again it is rational not to vote.Megalophias (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The second of the two implied conclusions is a mathematical howler: '2. in elections with an even number of voters voting, no single vote could possibly have any value.' That would unreasonably assume both two candidates and no voter abstentions or spoilage. Off the top of my head I can think of many reasons to vote, or other ways to affect a voter's ROI calculation (e.g. bundling multiple races into an election). If there are no better resources for this article to cite, somebody better write them. Simplulo (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I am one who tends to agree with the premise here. As far as editing I would just like to add a few comments to underline the folly of voting. When one takes this position one risks retribution and often violent rebuttals. Here, one can voice their comments and risk nothing. On my Toyota s4Runner 2001 I have chosen to voice my ire at the entire issue of voting in the USA. If I hear any negative comments about the fact that I am urging to  "Do Not Vote" I usually get positive vibrations from most people. It is amazing in a nation that allows voting, On the wind wing of my Toyota 4Runner I have giant white reflective letters that spell out, "DO NOT VOTE",  just my urging to share my slant on voting. When one really thinks about it what does voting really do for America but widen the income gap and start wars that rob our children of their lives and inflate the already worthless dollar bill. The election that is approaching is a fine example of the type of person that is put in front of the voter for votes. The very fact that a Clinton is trying to get elected really underlines the folly of voting. Hillary and that husband of hers are the epitome of unqualified candidates. We already know that kind of people they are and I see no point in letting either one rule over us. Their criminal behavior is well known to most people who take the time to research this issue. They are really devils waiting in the wings to create havoc some more. It just is too obnoxious to even talk about it. Print media is full of the Clinton crime family. I have not received the comment, "if you don't vote you cannot complain of the results of who gets elected". That is absurd of course, if I do not vote I will not be a part of the fact that they get elected and cause more havoc in this country that is almost on the skids now! Apparently there is no modus operandi for those who run for office in the USA. You must be rich of course but how you make your money is of no concern of course. Voting is a shambles. I can see no reason to vote whatsoever! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WelderSteel (talk • contribs) 14:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Freakonomics
(Sorry for the lousy English) One of the many new popular economic books (don't remember which) suggests that this is actually a result of peer pressure/keeping up appearances. When Switzerland made it possible to vote online (and there by reasonably lowering the cost of voting) the voting rate instead actually dropped. An effect credited to that it was no longer possible for your neighbours to know if you where abstentionist or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.182.49.156 (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That may well be true, but I'm not sure that including the Swiss experience adds anything to the reader's understanding of the "paradox of voting" concept. JamesMLane t c 17:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There Must Be More To This
Why is this article so short? This is surely a big subject area! Two obvious candidates for further material:


 * even if it's not the casting vote, your vote sends a message to the government. If you vote for the business candidate, the message is that the government must become more business oriented to maximise its probability of winning the next election (likewise for voting for the socialist candidate)


 * many people vote tribally - they vote for the party the rest of their community votes for. Surely, herd mentality is an important reason for voting?

And those are just off the top of my head! I feel that this MUST be a bigger subject than the size of the article implies! New Thought (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that the "expressive benefit", mentioned near the top, covers "tribal" voting. —Tamfang (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Absurdity not so absurd
"This argument does not account for the most trivial possible case of an election, that with only 2 electors voting. Since neither elector can exercise a pivotal vote, assuming the other casts a vote, the argument implies that voting in such an election has zero value, which is absurd." how is this absurd? besides the fact that calling it absurd with no clear reason is uninformative and pretty not-objective. voting with 2 electors can be considered to hold zero value in that for any vote you make, assuming the other also voted, you will either vote the same, leading to no impact in result, or vote differently, leading to an impasse, leaving no clear "winner". both can be seen as zero value as they both dont influence who wins. Just my two cents... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:C425:6200:9997:A0C7:F43C:32E3 (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Cost?
Aside from countries where you may be discouraged from voting or ones where you would have to sacrifice something major (a square meal to walk to a voting station) what are the 'costs' here? This paradox seems to hinge on some sort of subjective value(s) that cannot be expressed Cls14 (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * All values are subjective, but we can estimate the cost to a typical citizen of taking the time to go to the poll; it's small, yes, but the expected benefit is even smaller. (The cost is higher if you go out of your way to try to make an informed choice.) —Tamfang (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem though with this paradox, I don't see it as one because of it's huge limitations, is that it ignores all the other potential benefits of voting except for the outcome of the vote. By making an informed decision you'll learn more about politics which would mean you'd be able to join in more discussions with people. You'll no doubt learn other things as a by-product, especially if you use Wikipedia, haha. Heck, the walk to the polling station will do you good! Cls14 (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Charles Dodgson relevancy
As I can see, Charles Dodgson's article touches the other topic, Condorcet_paradox, about cycling majorities preferring A over B, B over C and C over A, which is not so relevant to the topic of the article. --217.20.186.149 (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This is only half of the paradox
This covers the incentive not to vote, but doesn't cover the incentive to vote, which is the other half of the paradox:

"in a general election, in which many citizens vote, the probability that a single voter can affect the outcome is so small that in general citizens have no rational reason for voting. However, if all citizens accept this reasoning, then none will vote, and so each vote has a large probability of affecting the outcome. Hence all should vote after all." https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00124949 — Omegatron (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)