Thanks, Jason. Assuming the best voting option has benefits relative to not voting equivalent to increasing the consumption of 1 person by 4 % for 1 year, that half of the population votes, which extrapolated to all voters would imply consumption growing 2 pp (= 0.04*0.5) faster for 1 year, and that each consumption doubling for 1 year is as good as averting 0.5 DALYs, the best voting option would be worth averting 0.02 DALYs (= 0.04*0.5). I estimate cage-free campaigns have a cost-effectiveness of 4.59 DALY/​$, in which case donating just 0.00436 $ (= 0.02/​4.59) to such campaigns would be as good as casting the best vote. For a net income of 20 $/​h, that would be 0.785 s (= 0.00436/​20*60^2). Voting would take way more time than this, so it would be better for people caring about animal welfare to skip voting to work (on directly helping animals, or earning to give), or have a good time to make them more productive in their work later.
Thanks, Jason. Assuming the best voting option has benefits relative to not voting equivalent to increasing the consumption of 1 person by 4 % for 1 year, that half of the population votes, which extrapolated to all voters would imply consumption growing 2 pp (= 0.04*0.5) faster for 1 year, and that each consumption doubling for 1 year is as good as averting 0.5 DALYs, the best voting option would be worth averting 0.02 DALYs (= 0.04*0.5). I estimate cage-free campaigns have a cost-effectiveness of 4.59 DALY/​$, in which case donating just 0.00436 $ (= 0.02/​4.59) to such campaigns would be as good as casting the best vote. For a net income of 20 $/​h, that would be 0.785 s (= 0.00436/​20*60^2). Voting would take way more time than this, so it would be better for people caring about animal welfare to skip voting to work (on directly helping animals, or earning to give), or have a good time to make them more productive in their work later.