Voting for Less than the Best*

The final totals revealed that, in fact, Stein’s total voters exceeded [the] margin of victory. In other words, if every Stein voter had voted for Clinton instead, she could have won Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin the presidency.22 . 2000 Bush/Gore election was, course, even closer: only a small number third-party Florida flipped election. rhetoric around voting hopeless candidates is often rather heated. 2016 election, supporters argued that while or Johnson might make better president than Clinton, it was self-indulgent morally irresponsible to vote candidate with no realistic chances. countered they right ‘vote their conscience’. A more reflective add her almost certainly would not determine outcome. If idea ‘throwing your away’ cashed out terms failing difference outcome, objection rests on false presupposition one done any event. Moreover, most convincing rationales massive elections at all seem entail ought whomever considers best. For example, justification derives from vague act as rationally be willing see everyone act, then hard why deems After all, candidate, win, securing best outcome (by one’s own lights). Furthermore, plausible following principle whomever, after due research deliberation, you deem best’ promote consequences principles allowing strategic (see below). If, hand, is, many theorists argued, express political values, also Voting think worse disapprove like cheering team want lose—insincere pointless.33 Only typically pointless. You cheer do prefer thereby disapproval way others are booing them—out racism, say. Whether this has analogue domain huge however, unclear. Since appeals universalizability rationality an expressive two leading justifications such elections, seems should consider best, matter how unlikely win. Each step argument compelling, yet find its conclusion highly implausible. There something worry about throwing away. Here we ingredients philosophical puzzle. Seemingly premises lead intuitively problematic conclusion. Nor arcane matter. Ordinary citizens agonize whether Passions run high, people unclear frame issue. Of may turn just follow preceding where leads. Indeed, few sustained discussions issue, Paul Meehl argues conscience sense, worries simply confused.44 Meehl, ‘The selfish paradox thrown-away argument’, American Political Science Review, 71 (1977), 11–30. However, Meehl’s discussion by now dated. publication 1977, another powerful rightly influential account been developed: Alvin Goldman’s ‘Causal Responsibility’ approach.55 Goldman, ‘Why vote: causal responsibility approach’, Social Philosophy Policy, 16 (1999), 201–17. dominant accounts, nobody really asked, much less answered, question theory bears debate. article, I argue vicinity provides hope vindicating ‘don’t throw intuition. As happens, agree Carolina Sartorio relies view causation, but Sartorio’s friendly amendment his approach nicely accommodates insights without metaphysics.66 Sartorio, ‘How responsible causing it’, Philosophical Perspectives, 18 (2004), 315–36. Finally, caveat. focus systems which largest votes wins—sometimes called ‘plurality voting’ systems. puzzle arise kinds some reason alternative elections—for so-called ‘instant runoff’ election.77 See especially Daniel Wodak, case against plurality rule’, Journal Philosophy, 27 (2019), 363–87. Although am sympathetic view, shall discuss here, instead still practical issue finds oneself plurality-rule system, will foreseeable future. Our arises intersection debates. On there debate US presidential all. It understatement say chances minuscule. Nonetheless, commonly characterize obligatory. Slogans ‘Vote Die!’ ‘Rock Vote!’ considerable currency. Some go so far claim ‘civic sacrament’ citizen’s ‘highest obligation’.88 Christine Pelosi, Campaign Boot Camp 2.0 (San Francisco: Berret-Koehler, 2012), p. 126. when winning appeal intuitive cannot wrong Others derisively suggest away’. What unfortunately rarely discussed these debates related. Why enormous implications vote. underappreciated, Selfish Voter Paradox Thrown-Away Vote Argument’, sets dilemma. either (a) because (b) (with adequate information reflection) office. Call ‘Meehl’s challenge’. first horn easily understood backdrop expected utility. cost-free; takes time effort. here put side those who take pleasure sake. Such cases rare, doing virtuous additional reason. Further, enjoyed it, anyway. costs entirely trivial. One must off work childcare, wait queue, on. These weighed benefits. Insofar benefits influencing obvious incredibly unlikely. standard dealing decisions made under uncertainty maximize moral contexts, means aggregate utility agent. Expected relevant facts quickly need elections.99 This basic point familiar. classic can found Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory Democracy (New York: Harper Row, 1957), ch. 14. vote’; Geoffrey Brennan Loren Lomasky, ‘Large numbers, costs: uneasy foundation democratic Lomasky (eds), Politics Process: New Essays Democratic Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 42–59; Richard Tuck, Free Riding (Cambridge, MA: Harvard 2008); Sayre-McCord, ‘Voting responsibility’, D. Sobel (ed.), Oxford Studies (Oxford: 2015), 2. recent attempt justify utility, Zach Barnett, change outcome’, Public Affairs, forthcoming. prospective weigh near certain non-negligible versus infinitesimally chance determining important recognize minuscule are. analysis 2008 Andrew Gelman, Nate Silver, Edlin concluded average American’s 1 60 million. swing states, odds were better, extremely long—around 10 ‘safe’ very comfortable lead, worse—around billion.1010 Edlin, ‘What probability difference?’, NBER working paper 15220 (2009), . correct method controversial. different issues involved, outcome’. did initially difference, race close trigger recount. recount come exactly same, again making factored into equation. sure calculate odds, fall well short 100 per cent. Despite breathtakingly long expected-utility grounds. Derek Parfit notes although long, payoffs large.1111 Parfit, Reasons Persons 1984), 73–5. Granted, stakes high elections. Even so, believe size provide compelling rationale First, impractical finite agents ourselves includes taking probabilities. Many our mundane pose risks horrible outcomes. always outcomes account, deliberation become impossible. does mean form play role normative decision-making. Rather, somehow restricted.1212 in-depth defence kind Nicholas Rescher, Risk (Lanham: Rowman Littlefield, 1983). literature ‘bounded rationality’ ‘satisficing’. Citizens therefore legitimately ignore tiny Second, assuming unrestricted theory, dubious. Arguments contrary tend implicitly assume negligibly small. itself, true, though significant: poor living overseas. Unfortunately, 2020 queues vote, last happens. More importantly, though, mistake exhausted itself. Plausibly, obligation responsibly, involves being suitably informed reflective. Someone votes, having homework reflected pros cons, hardly civic duty. becoming reflecting adequately trivial, particularly several candidates. arising numerous heterogeneous, each monumentally important. whose policy proposals case, relative importance policies. candidates’ track record, character, likely alliances Congress, skills relevant.1313 Jason Brennan, Ethics (Princeton: Princeton 2011) further discussion. Obviously said, reasonable presume responsibly typical Given effectively calculation support voting. weighing nearly negligible going polls infinitesimal good Instead, certainty substantial associated vanishingly critical difference. voting, strong sacred surprise developed accounts reasons second dilemma, theories whichever perhaps clearest common-sense ideal encapsulated rhetorical question, ‘what acted that?’. Anecdotally, pressed. somewhat inchoate universalization (or generalization) precise multiple ways, obviously survey logical space here.1414 useful survey, Marcus Singer, Generalization Atheneum, 1971). Instead briefly explain general area entails Rule-utilitarianism ways turning theory. Rule-utilitarians rules acceptance utility.1515 John Harsanyi makes precisely ‘Rule utilitarianism, rights, obligations rational behavior’, Decision, 12 (1980), 115–33. rule since otherwise democracy function properly. same reasoning suggests requiring tap arguments ‘deliberative democracy’, according (roughly) leads government pool judgements what best.1616 Cf. Amy Gutman Dennis Thompson, Deliberative Democracy? 2004). avoid parties preventing emergence valid alternatives afraid said here. rule-utilitarianism warrant conditional clear victory.1717 thorough complex require Donald Regan’s ‘cooperative utilitarianism’; Regan, Utilitarianism Cooperation 1980). rule-utilitarian answer sort ‘why vote?’ challenge favour Kantian ethics offers use concept universalization. Kantian, everyone’s acting internalizing norms) desirable. agent’s maxim performing action consistently universal law—on formulation Categorical Imperative, law applies (at least, find!). categorical imperative generates duty presumably candidate. lights) willed contradiction—at looming contradiction, derived. already enough least permissible stymie framework ‘I unless winning’ contradiction law. Suppose adopts maxim. individual know vote? A, whom depend part else But fixed independently have, given universalization, adopted maxim, either. Therefore, knowing (given universalization) depends (in part) thus stuck, unable decide Willing self-stultifying. pragmatically contradict original achieving end impermissibility turn, arguably How address lot derivation convincing, too tangent develop full here.1818 At minimum, thoroughgoing apply Kant’s investigating formulations event, vindicates permissibility politically candidates, universal. allegiance, widely thought point, instrumental relationship choice candidate.2121 Riding, 33–4. Fortunately, assess tenability simpler. justified expressing values preferences, To inferior lose. Yet Alexander Guerrero’s ‘Manifest Normative Mandate’ (MNM) account.2222 Guerrero, representation’, 38 (2010), 272–306. lack justice increase authority ‘manifest mandate’ preferred trustee (rather delegate), delegate guided majority constituents want, judgement constituents, contradicts them want. Guerrero thinks elect trustees delegates, should, he elected, solid trustees. varies directly manifest mandate (MNM), itself garnered. By MNM, bit, Shouldn’t bad ‘viable’ candidate? fact significant so. similar supports govern trustees, delegates. saying this, representatives respond MNM appropriate. considerations tell favor bad. considerations, wins And consideration lesser evils, ‘weakens’ greater evil. whatever evil candidate: strengthens candidate—by vote—who unworthy support.2323 Ibid., 301. So once again, vindicate ‘throw now, powerful. article written before Goldman turns resources ultimately subtle questions praiseworthiness blameworthiness ‘trickle down’ groups members, argue. lay theses. example uses motivate (1) firing squad. true member squad fired target killed. perverse infer causally target’s death. Once accept (1), (2) plausible. knowingly choose bringing extent praiseworthy, whereas blameworthy. nicely. We unjust exculpated actions necessary victim’s seek praiseworthiness. draws ideas dominance argument. abstain wins. missed opportunity praiseworthy winner. loses. blameworthy, Goldman. things trickier, though; abstaining cause anyone’s He defends ‘vectoral model’ causes winner’s victory receives. abstention someone eligible open up charge ‘causal agent option countervailing casual factor.2424 vote’, 211. attractions. rely delusional unlike neutral between wide range first-order theories. Third, resonates actual psychology voters. Voters value both valuable ‘bigger themselves’. Politicians encouraging ‘part change’, on.2525 E.g. Andy Burnham (UK Labour) used slogan ‘Be Part Change’; . time, objections. mostly narcissistic blameworthiness. empathy, thing decisive. wrongness blameworthiness, motivated desire wrongly.2626 Stuart Mill, 1998), 5. Perhaps ‘that complicity evil’ along lines. Another causation. Sartorio.2727 it’. Oversimplifying, commits fallacy division—inferring proper property whole it. inference generally valid. five pounds counter-example. suggestion event relevantly pounds, vitiates account. group together brought nice someone’s clap rude. Failing partly constituted moving left hand way. person’s failure move simultaneously person rude, mere belief treat joint involving par parts agents, undermines anything She ingenious examples absurdly implies virtually omission temporally precedes. positive preserves insightful tendentious Causation among causes.