Voting: The Free-rider Problem or the Tragedy of the Commons

A friend of mine posed an interesting question to me in an email a couple days ago. He said that he thinks that voting is an example of the free-rider problem. So naturally I responded with my thoughts and comments and while I waited for a reply I did some research to better my understanding of how one may tackle such an abstract way to approach something as trivial as voting.

I remembered reading a Freakonomics column that asked the question about why economists don’t see the point in voting. Their answer was that it was an example where the costs outweighed the benefits. The costs being the loss of time, work or leisure, spent in the lines, the petrol costs to get you to your local polling station etc.

The benefits being the apparent “civic duty” that most people feel when casting votes. The apparent feeling that I will be making a difference when if actual fact the odds of my vote changing the outcome are similar, maybe slightly better than playing the lotto, or worse depending on how poor voter turnout is. In a pure mechanical sense of working up the pros and cons, an economist would always argue the costs are too high and therefore we are not being efficient with our resources.

I do especially like the line in the column where two economists see each other at voting station and they both say their wives made them come.

The Free-rider Problem

As any economics student will tell you with textbook certainty, the free-rider problem occurs when an individual or group of individuals unduly gain from some third party act or product or decision without having to pay for it.

Using this definition it seems clear that voting can clearly be thought of as a free-rider problem.

For example, you have a choice between two political parties, party A and party B. Each parties candidates are clones of each other (let’s hope neither Donald Trump nor Hilary Clinton). And you and I differ so hence we cast our votes one for party A and one for party B. Let’s assume that after the results are announced, your party won the election and now governs our economy. No problem yet.

That is until the leading party starts enacting some of their policies. This is where I both agree and disagree with my friend. If the policies of the ruling party lead to an expansion in our economy, unemployment is reduced and GDP skyrockets. Then yes sure, I am a free-rider I suppose; I didn’t contribute to the party winning the election and yet I am basking in the glow of how magnificent our economy is. I am receiving a positive externality.

Tragedy of the Commons

If, however, on the other hand the policies turn out to be total nonsense and end up plunging the economy into economic Armageddon then that would classify as a negative externality.

But first, the tragedy of the commons arises when someone who is looking out for their own interest ends up harming society as a whole. Applying it to our situation and with party A winning and turning out to be not credible, my friend would be guilty of acting in his self-interest at the downfall of society as a whole. All of this rests on the assumption that party B would be credible. W lack a counter factual here but let’s move on.

I didn’t vote for party A, so am I guilty of consigning our economy, the commons, to this awful fate? I am not sure. I would say not just due to the fact that I didn’t contribute to electing the redundant party A.

It was at this point that my friend pointed out that tragedies of the commons tend to disappear when people come to the realization of the dangers they could be faced with. Why then he asked, “don’t people get rid of rouge parties which have been there for years?”

I am no psychologist so I reserve comment here.

Back to our self-interested individuals voting for party A. Are these people rational in their self interest? I have big problem with the use of the word rationality. As well as the over use of it in most economics courses I have taken up to this point.

I regard the act of voting as an irrational one mainly due to the fact that people don’t put a lot of choice into who they vote for. Most of the time people will vote for the same party they did last time. We can’t explain why. Perhaps a fear factor. Also, children usually vote for the same party as their parents.

Let’s continue on with rationality. If rationality could be applied to everyone then some things would change in the voting procedure.

There would be no need for multiple parties vying or out against each other gain votes from people on the margin. This because if everyone was rational then the people who were in office would be doing everything for the betterment of society, the voting public would see that and keep reflecting them. So the need to vote pretty much diminishes until we scrap it altogether.

So in conclusion voting isn’t irrational, it is the result of the irrationality of the people believing they are acting rationally. And as for the question as to whether voting is the free-rider problem or the tragedy of the commons? The answer, in my opinion, is both.

It just depends on which side of the fence you’re standing.