I do think that things like voting are dominated in their impact not by direct, but by indirect effects, which cannot really be captured in simple numbers. For example, if I vote I set a good example for my friends, which in turn makes them more likely to vote, which in turn makes their friends more likely to vote. Repeat this enough times and you have more stable democracy. I get that you could also model this in a relatively simple way, but my point is that there are a lot of interacting factors like this.
Making a only numbers based argument in such and similar cases gives the illusion of certainty, while actually you likely have not considered many important factors, which makes the number kinda random and not something that you can base solid decisions on. However, I think having such a number anchors you strongly, which makes it harder to change your opinion in the future, especially if the arguments are non-number based.
I do think that things like voting are dominated in their impact not by direct, but by indirect effects, which cannot really be captured in simple numbers.
I agree indirect effects are important. As I said in the post, they contributed both to my decision of continuing to vote in the past, and my decision to stop voting recently.
For example, if I vote I set a good example for my friends, which in turn makes them more likely to vote, which in turn makes their friends more likely to vote. Repeat this enough times and you have more stable democracy. I get that you could also model this in a relatively simple way, but my point is that there are a lot of interacting factors like this.
Thanks for raising this. It is a common objection, but I am not persuaded by it:
As far as I know, all the people I regularly talk to vote, so I am not seeing how I would easily make more people vote.
I estimated voting is only worth 0.2 $ in donations to GiveWell’s top charities, which means tens of seconds given how much I value my time. In contrast, I guess convincing someone to vote takes tens of minutes to hours, so it would not be worth it.
I agree more people voting will tend to lead to a more stable democracy, but we have to compare this with the effect of additional donations or working time.
I agree we should think about which norms we want to spread. However, I would rather spread the norm of “contributing to a better world (regardless of whether this involves voting or not)” instead of that of “voting (regardless of whether this contributes to a better world or not)”. Note I am not arguing for everyone to stop voting! Very few people are in my position of having their marginal earnings going towards effective donations, which means their opportunity cost is much lower, and therefore voting will tend to be way more advisable.
Making a only numbers based argument in such and similar cases gives the illusion of certainty, while actually you likely have not considered many important factors, which makes the number kinda random and not something that you can base solid decisions on.
I am under no illusions! I appreciate the uncertainty of my numbers, but I would say this weakens the case for voting:
I appreciate there is uncertainty in my parameters and model, but these decrease my confidence that I can make the right voting choice, thus decreasing the direct value of voting. To be honest, my current estimates for the 2 major candidates (AD and PS) have so little resilience that I sense my vote is roughly as likely to be positive as negative.
I could learn more about the parties to get to an informed decision, but this is not worth it given my opportunity cost. This does not mean I consider elections and politics irrelevant:
To be clear, I agree that safeguarding liberal democracy is quite important. For what it is worth, I was a member of PAN for 3 years. I was not very active, but during that time I discussed concepts related to effective altruism, suggested ideas for policies, took part in some meetings, and collected signatures. My decision not to vote does not mean at all that I would endorse going back to a dictatorship. In fact, I admire the people who took part in the Carnation Revolution “that overthrew the authoritarian Estado Novo government on 25 April 1974”, and could see myself having participated in some form. However, skipping voting in Portugal today has a very minor effect on increasing the chance of a totalitarian government at the current margin[10]. Relatedly, continuing to eat factory-farmed animals on the basis that the food system would collapse if everyone decided to go plant-based overnight is a poor argument, because such an abrupt change is wholly unrealistic.
For what is worth, given my current opportunity cost, I would be happy to participate in a citizens’ assembly, and I am happy to discuss politics with family and friends.
However, I think having such a number anchors you strongly, which makes it harder to change your opinion in the future, especially if the arguments are non-number based.
I agree it is important to be mindful of measurability bias. On the other hand, I am not worried by the above because indirect qualitative effects played a major role in my decision not to vote. For example, I talked with close family about whether they would be bothered by me not voting. Everyone was fine, but if anyone had a meaningful preference for me to vote, I would do so. Decreasing the quality of my relationships with close family members would easily dominate the direct effects. I did not quantify this, but this is the kind of qualitative arguments I think are worth considering.
By the way, I am not sure whether you wanted to reply to this:
I would also be curious to know whether you strongly downvoted the post (I guess you did), and explain a little why. Downvoting at this point does not decrease visibility, because the post was published long ago.
I do think that things like voting are dominated in their impact not by direct, but by indirect effects, which cannot really be captured in simple numbers. For example, if I vote I set a good example for my friends, which in turn makes them more likely to vote, which in turn makes their friends more likely to vote. Repeat this enough times and you have more stable democracy. I get that you could also model this in a relatively simple way, but my point is that there are a lot of interacting factors like this.
Making a only numbers based argument in such and similar cases gives the illusion of certainty, while actually you likely have not considered many important factors, which makes the number kinda random and not something that you can base solid decisions on. However, I think having such a number anchors you strongly, which makes it harder to change your opinion in the future, especially if the arguments are non-number based.
I agree indirect effects are important. As I said in the post, they contributed both to my decision of continuing to vote in the past, and my decision to stop voting recently.
Thanks for raising this. It is a common objection, but I am not persuaded by it:
As far as I know, all the people I regularly talk to vote, so I am not seeing how I would easily make more people vote.
I estimated voting is only worth 0.2 $ in donations to GiveWell’s top charities, which means tens of seconds given how much I value my time. In contrast, I guess convincing someone to vote takes tens of minutes to hours, so it would not be worth it.
I agree more people voting will tend to lead to a more stable democracy, but we have to compare this with the effect of additional donations or working time.
I agree we should think about which norms we want to spread. However, I would rather spread the norm of “contributing to a better world (regardless of whether this involves voting or not)” instead of that of “voting (regardless of whether this contributes to a better world or not)”. Note I am not arguing for everyone to stop voting! Very few people are in my position of having their marginal earnings going towards effective donations, which means their opportunity cost is much lower, and therefore voting will tend to be way more advisable.
I am under no illusions! I appreciate the uncertainty of my numbers, but I would say this weakens the case for voting:
I could learn more about the parties to get to an informed decision, but this is not worth it given my opportunity cost. This does not mean I consider elections and politics irrelevant:
For what is worth, given my current opportunity cost, I would be happy to participate in a citizens’ assembly, and I am happy to discuss politics with family and friends.
I agree it is important to be mindful of measurability bias. On the other hand, I am not worried by the above because indirect qualitative effects played a major role in my decision not to vote. For example, I talked with close family about whether they would be bothered by me not voting. Everyone was fine, but if anyone had a meaningful preference for me to vote, I would do so. Decreasing the quality of my relationships with close family members would easily dominate the direct effects. I did not quantify this, but this is the kind of qualitative arguments I think are worth considering.
By the way, I am not sure whether you wanted to reply to this:
Nevermind if you did not intend to reply.