The Special Election - decline in democracy

This morning I voted early in the California Special Election. The Field Poll suggested that a 43% turnout was expected. But what is unexpected is that 40% of that turnout will be absentee. About a decade ago, I had a dinner with some friends and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. It was a remarkable event. The good Senator came a bit late, proceeded to consume an enormous amount of libations and keep everyone at the table in rapture. The purpose of the dinner was to discuss tax issues as they related to higher education. But DPM started out with an absolutely fascinating discussion, with a winsome look in his eye, about the history of the franchise in the US. Somewhat tongue in cheek, he lamented the change that happened when America adopted the Australian (secret) ballot. Prior to its adoption in the mid-19th century voters were required to go to their town square or hall and cast their vote in the open. DPM suggested that the secret ballot somehow reduced the real benefits of expressing one's preference in public - of standing for one's beliefs. In the last several years states have made it easier to exercise the franchise in a number of ways - first by allowing citizens to register much later in the process and then by allowing people to claim the need for an absentee ballot for any reason. One wonders whether those small changes have even in a minor way reduced the genuine impact of voting.

In my household, without evidence of voting on an election day all 18 and older residents do not eat. In this election three of the four voters in the household chose to cast their ballot absentee.

On another topic - Dan Weintraub (the Sacramento Bee Political Columnist extraordinary) yesterday posted something on an issue first raised in the literature of Public Choice Economics. Some in the field argue that it is irrational to vote for a number of reasons. First, if you take the time to learn the issues - and lots of people do not - your potential effect on the election is so small that the investment of time has an exceedingly marginal payoff. Second, few elections are close so the investment you make in elections seems to be time wasted - ultimately your ability to influence the course of events is small. As I have thought about those arguments over the years - I have come to reject them. Here is why. Sure there are uninformed voters and sure most elections are not close. But, here is why the assumption is flawed. Take my example. I am known among a group of voters as someone who is pretty well informed. People actually seek me out on elections. My best guess is that among that group I have between 15 and 20 people who ask my advice. Assuming that at least the repeat customers are influenced by my suggestions (why would they come back if they were not?) then my fraction of the voting population is significantly higher than one vote.

The first post in this blog was about the Iraqui elections in January, 2005. It is important to remember that in spite of the "tsunami of lies and distortions" that was piled on California voters in this election, exercising the franchise, whether in the public square, with a purple thumb or in an absentee ballot is a critical function that differentiates us from many other societies.