Paradox of democracy |

Paradox of democracy

After the recent midterm elections and reading Donald J. Boudreaux’s column “Politics’ rationally irrational nature” , it is interesting to consider the value of a vote. Voting may be important in the aggregate, but each individual’s vote is almost meaningless because each person is such a small percentage of the total. This is the paradox of democracy.

Each individual vote has a zero-percent chance of changing the outcome of an election. In Pennsylvania, there are 8.25 million registered voters, and in Allegheny County, there are over 880,000. Even with a 10-percent voter turnout, you would only have a 1-in-88,000 chance of changing the outcome in a county race, 1-in 825,000 in a state race. This gives us an idea about how little an impact we may have as individuals. Even if it were to come down to a single vote, the courts would take up the decision. I submit Florida in 2000 as exhibit A.

There are reasons we can identify to vote, like voicing opinion, giving support to candidates that match commonly held values, and exercising the right to, vote but the hope of changing the outcome of these elections shouldn’t be high on that list.

Ian Dean Summers

Logan, Utah

The writer is academic programs specialist for Strata Policy.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.