Is Low Voter Turnout a Bad Thing?

This is a question worth pondering for Americans about to have an election, Canadians who are just recovering from one, and really anyone who has encouraged a reluctant would-be voter to cast a ballot.

Will Wilkinson of the Cato Institute, reflecting on the level of participation in Canada's election (~59%), makes the case that low voter turnout could in fact "signal social solidarity, reflect real civic virtue, and even make democracy work better." How's that? Wilkinson argues that it is not simply your civic duty to vote, but to vote well - as in, voting for politicians that will implement policies that make society better off. Given that many people are largely ignorant of the issues and too busy to research them, abstaining from voting can help to maintain the public good.

But doesn't that mean that, like what I imagine happens at school board meetings, only the people with something to complain about show up? Would that not make elections even more partisan and divisive? Apparently not. According to research quoted in the article, voters of all stripes tend to vote in good faith to promote the public good rather than purely out of economic self-interest. Following this logic, those least able to determine the appropriate policies (re: the uninformed, lazy, or otherwise occupied) should stay home.

Interesting thought. But I would add to this by saying that, even though people think they are voting for the public good, they may not be at all. The classic case is protectionism: "protecting" the country's economy feels like a good idea, but Economics 101 shows how, in most cases, freer trade makes society better off. The academic debate over the value of comparative advantage focuses on the degree of benefit, not the principle itself. Yet despite this, voters consistently vote for protectionist policies. In other words, what voters want and what they vote for are frequently opposites.

I've been reading Bryan Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter this past week, and he argues that voters are "rationally irrational." Because the odds of casting a deciding vote in a national election is effectively zero*, it doesn't make sense to spend a lot of time researching the best policies.

"Since delusional political beliefs are free, the voter consumes until he reaches his "satiation point," believing whatever makes him feel best. When a person puts on his voting hat, he does not have to give up practical efficacy in exchange for self-image, because he has no practical efficacy to give up in the first place." (132, original italics)

If you make a bad decision in the marketplace, you pay a price and have an incentive to make better choices. If you make a bad decision in a voting booth, the cost is spread out across the whole population and you have no incentive to make better choices. So, even if Wilkinson is right, voter turnout would have to be minuscule for the effects of rational irrationality to be muted.

This means that, since we're much too fond of our democratic freedoms to restrict voting or have a poll tax, we should expect elections to produce sub-optimal results. And if you're looking for proof, look no further than the latest election coverage.

----------------------------------
*Actually, in the last US Presidential election, each vote impacted the outcome by 0.000000949%.
"Swish that around in your mouth for a while. How does it taste? Taste like freedom? 'Cause to me it tastes like jack-all squat." - Stephen Colbert, America: A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction