Voting As A Commodity
MichaelW on Oct 19 2006 at 12:39 am | Filed under: Domestic Politics, MichaelW's Page
There is much exortation from Democrats and the Left to join them this November in vanquishing the Republican majority, and from Republicians and the Right for their supporters not to stay home when said vanquishing begins. It occurs to me that what the severely political set is missing about the average voter is that, to these voters, the franchise has a value. If you contemplate a person’s vote as a sort of commodity one that can only be sold in the political market,* you may recognize that in order for someone to part with that vote, their minimum price must be met.
For a typical Democrat voter that may mean a candidate who is reliably pro-abortion or one who will fight to raise the federal minimum wage. Perhaps either one or a combination of those traits is not enough. This average Democrat voter may also insist on getting an investigation of the President, or a bill to withdraw the troops from Iraq. For the typical Republican, the minimum price may be passage of a Gay Marriage Amendment to the Constitution, or cuts to capital gains taxes, or a committment to more troops in Iraq.
Indeed, some voters may insist on the candidate refraining from certain activities in order to part with that precious vote, such as any of the affirmative actions set forth above, or maybe if the candidate will just promise not to bugger the help. Whatever the price may be for each individual voter, the candidate must decide which voters he will accomodate with his promises, and which he will not. Once he has doled enough promises, and received enough votes, he can then go on to Congress where he may then quickly set about to breaking the promises, blaming his transgression on the other party, and, of course, bugger the help.
This time around, however, the voters seem to have a higher minimum price than the candidates are either willing and or able to meet. Or it may just be (as in my case) the promises just aren’t worth anything anymore. Either way, there does not seem to be a lot of candidates willing to meet the minimum price.
But, your vote will just be wasted if you don’t vote for anybody!
Will it? The way I see it, my vote is being wasted by selling for promises that I either don’t want or know won’t be kept. I find more value in saving my vote, than in spending it on a candidate that I don’t want. This goes doubly so when my vote will definitely be misconstrued as support for the platform of that particular candidate. If there were, as McQ has suggested, a NOTA option available, that would meet my minimum price. But since there is no such option, I’ll keep my vote to myself as a sort of pocket veto.
* [edited for internal consistency]
Technorati Tags: politics, Congressional races, NOTA, voting, voter apathy
9 Responses to “Voting As A Commodity”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
How can I describe this post? Blunt? Acerbic? Straight forward? Bracing? Invigorating?
I think words fail me. I guess I’ll just bugger off!
Blunt, acerbic, straight forward AND right on!
Bingo, Michael, bingo.
If you are treating a vote as a commodity, it must be as one that expires the day of voting. It is not like you can ’save’ it and use it at a later time. It does not accrue interest, does not grow in value, and the act of not using it will actually cause future votes to be less valuable.
Vote no matter what, if you want to ‘pocket veto’ to show displeasure to the two main parties, vote 3rd party. 3rd party voting is basically a NOTA option since they are never elected anyway.
John,
I think that is what Michael intends on doing if there are any third parties available. He just isn’t going to sell it for nothing to the major parties at this point.
I disagree. If I save my vote then it gains in value since it then has a greater chance to be sold for my minimum price. If I sell to one of the current candidates I am tacitly approving of their agenda. That devalues my vote. If enough people refuse to sell their votes for such a low price, someone will recognize an opportunity to accumulate those votes by offering the right price. If enough such entrepreneurs are drawn to the political market, competition for my vote may raise the price. Best of all, the candidates that had been receiving most of the votes will be forced to compete for those votes as well.
The underlying idea is that “price” conveys information. If I sell for a price that is less than my minimum I am not conveying the correct information. Those who withhold their votes (i.e. raise their minimum price) send information to the political market about the value of their franchise. Since votes are really only valuable to the consumer (i.e. candidate) in the aggregate, once enough of those votes congregate around a minimum price, the candidate will either be forced to meet the price or he will face competition that will.
Accordingly, I think that withholding my vote does indeed increase its value.
Yep. Of course, when like any other product, when misleading marketing is used too pervasively, the market fails.
I think you’re right, glasnost. It’s as if the political market has become a sort of Lemons Market.
If I save my vote then it gains in value since it then has a greater chance to be sold for my minimum price.
More likely it’ll just be written off as not available. From the politician side of things it’s basically impossible to tell NOTA non-vote from a JTDL (Just Too Darn Lazy) non-vote. There’s not even the exit poll, however notoriously unreliable they are, to put a reason to it.
With respect to my non-vote, that true (to a point; even the most jaded politician can’t ignore a huge swath of non-voters). But an actual NOTA vote on a ballot would definitely be registered. It would be an affirmative vote against all candidates listed.