The Ethics of Voting.

• Author: Powell, Aaron Ross
• Position: Book review

The Ethics of Voting

Jason Brennan

Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 9.011, 9.22 pp.

Grab anyone at a coffee shop, political rally, or cocktail party. Ask him, "Do you think we have a duty to vote?" Chances are he'll say "Yes." Follow it up with, "Is it because there's something special about voting that places it above other duties we might have, like say avoiding speeding or paying our taxes?" It's a safe bet you'll get a "yes" to this one as well.

Jason Brennan calls the thinking behind these twin affirmatives the "folk theory of voting ethics." It's the common view of civics classes, straw polls, and town hall meetings. The folk theory is what we all learn in school, along with the three branches of government and the Founding Fathers. Teasing specifics out of these near-universal--but often rather vague--attitudes, Brennan arrives at the following three-part formal view of the folk theory:

1. "Each citizen has a civic duty to vote. In extenuating circumstances, one can be excused from voting, but otherwise, one should vote."

2. "While it is true that there can be better or worse candidates, in general any good faith vote is morally acceptable. At the very least, it is better to vote than to abstain."

3. "It is inherently wrong to buy or sell one's vote."

The Ethics of Voting attacks the folk triumvirate and mostly succeeds. Brennan presents his opponents' eases clearly and fairly and then exposes them as irreparably weak. He often does such a good job, in fact, that his conclusions frequently seem obvious. Sadly, the persistence of the folk theory indicates otherwise.

The book's first chapter covers arguments in favor of the duty to vote. The trouble for those who would demand such a duty is that voting simply doesn't accomplish much--and not voting produces no harm. Any duty-to-vote argument that depends on the instrumental value of the act thus runs into very real problems with numbers, because the benefits of each individual's vote are so tiny as to be effectively zero. Moreover, voting isn't flee. By voting, I'm not doing something else, which may have more value (by however we choose to measure it) than hopping in the car and driving to the local elementary school to spend an hour standing in line.

Other theories fail as well, including those from causal responsibility (even if your vote isn't the deciding vote, it may be among the group of votes that decided the election) and from public goods (your vote may not matter, but what if everyone thought like that and so everyone stayed home?). So...