Diego, I don’t weight any of the 4 risks you’ve listed very heavily. I also think you’ve underestimated the benefits.
In regards to Benefit #1, a vote’s relevance doesn’t depend on the election being decided by a single vote. If you think probabilistically, then in any given election, your vote has a certain probability of affecting the outcome. You can weight that against how important you think it is for Party A to win over Party B. I think that given how little it costs to vote, it’s usually clearly worth it to take a small action with a tiny probability of having large-scale consequences.
I think this is somewhat analogous to going vegetarian, in which case you’re contributing to a larger cause even though your individual decision not to buy meat only has a tiny probability of being the non-purchase that causes the grocery store to order one less item next time.
Other benefits:
a) Your vote might cause other people to vote with you. In this case, you are no longer a single vote but a package of votes.
b) There’s also something to be said for signalling an interest in politics and social issues.
c) In some elections, your vote might give the party you voted for more seats, funding, power and/or legitimacy, even if they ultimately lose the election.
d) The attention it takes to learn about politics can also have multiple benefits: being in touch with the people around you, learning about issues in society, learning about solving those issues, etc.
a) Yes, famous people should signal to whom they will vote.
b) Signalling interest in politics seems commendable on occasion and despicable at least as frequently.
c) Which is why I focused on large elections where the counterfactual difference would be larger. Also, definition-wise, a vote that decides on more seats is a vote that breaks a tie, which I had considered.
d) The hypothesis that dedicating attention to politics gets you closer to the people around me strikes me as utopic, whereas frequently politics are used to determine who is left, not who is right, in a social environment.
Diego, I don’t weight any of the 4 risks you’ve listed very heavily. I also think you’ve underestimated the benefits.
In regards to Benefit #1, a vote’s relevance doesn’t depend on the election being decided by a single vote. If you think probabilistically, then in any given election, your vote has a certain probability of affecting the outcome. You can weight that against how important you think it is for Party A to win over Party B. I think that given how little it costs to vote, it’s usually clearly worth it to take a small action with a tiny probability of having large-scale consequences.
I think this is somewhat analogous to going vegetarian, in which case you’re contributing to a larger cause even though your individual decision not to buy meat only has a tiny probability of being the non-purchase that causes the grocery store to order one less item next time.
Other benefits:
a) Your vote might cause other people to vote with you. In this case, you are no longer a single vote but a package of votes.
b) There’s also something to be said for signalling an interest in politics and social issues.
c) In some elections, your vote might give the party you voted for more seats, funding, power and/or legitimacy, even if they ultimately lose the election.
d) The attention it takes to learn about politics can also have multiple benefits: being in touch with the people around you, learning about issues in society, learning about solving those issues, etc.
a) Yes, famous people should signal to whom they will vote.
b) Signalling interest in politics seems commendable on occasion and despicable at least as frequently.
c) Which is why I focused on large elections where the counterfactual difference would be larger. Also, definition-wise, a vote that decides on more seats is a vote that breaks a tie, which I had considered.
d) The hypothesis that dedicating attention to politics gets you closer to the people around me strikes me as utopic, whereas frequently politics are used to determine who is left, not who is right, in a social environment.