Much of the “paradox” of voter turnout is overlooking a simple point: Most folks who bother to vote do so because they like voting
Ask a political scientist whether it is rational to vote. Go on, do it. If they’re honest about what most research says, they’ll say “no.” That’s because most research on turnout is weird.
For 53 years, political scientists have had trouble explaining turnout. First Downs (1957) 
, then Riker and Ordeshook (1968) argued that if voting entails any costs at all, then voting is not rational. Consider:
- What’s the benefit of voting? Well, how (un)happy would you be having a Democratic president instead of a Republican? If your vote determines whether the president is a Democrat or a Republican, then the benefit of voting is your difference in happiness.
- The problem: Your vote does not determine the outcome. The probability that your vote will determine whether you get a Republican or Democratic president is basically zero. Thus, the benefits of voting are basically zero.
- So if voting has any costs at all, then you shouldn’t vote. And voting does have costs: It takes time to learn about the candidates, time to go to the polling place, time to fill out your ballot, etc.
Since 1957, political scientists have wasted barrels of ink trying to resolve this “paradox” of turnout.1 But really, this is a weird line of research. Suppose we used the same sort of logic to explain why people cheer for their favorite sports team. If doing so entails any costs, then March Madness is, indeed, madness.
- What’s the benefit of rooting for your team? Well, how (un)happy would you be having Kansas win instead of Duke? If your cheering determines whether the winning team is Kansas instead of Duke, then the benefit of cheering is your difference in happiness.
- The problem: Your cheering does not determine the outcome. The probability that your cheering will determine whether you get Kansas or Duke is basically zero. Thus, the benefits are basically zero.
- So if following sports has any costs at all, then you shouldn’t vote. And rooting for your team does have costs: It takes LOTS of time to keep track of all the teams, players, and stats; it takes lots of time to watch games (time better spent with your wife and kids); it takes time to fill out your bracket; etc.
People who like sports are motivated to participate. They don’t just watch sportscenter; they want to become part of the action by filling out a bracket, going to the game in person, playing a pickup game with their friends, and so on.
People who like politics are motivated to participate. They don’t just watch CNN; they want to become part of the action by filling out a ballot, going to the caucus in person, talking about politics with their friends, and so on.
If there’s a flaw in the analogy, I’d love to hear it. But it seems to me that much of the “paradox” of voter turnout is overlooking a simple point: Most folks who bother to vote do so because they like voting. And just as sports fans don’t fill out their bracket randomly for the sake of filling it out, voters don’t fill out their ballot randomly for the sake of filling it out.2