Your Vote Really Doesn't Matter

Us bloggers, myself included, like to encourage each other to vote. We're always piping, "your vote counts." It's nice to think we're important; that when we cast our ballots, we've made a difference. Well, turns out that's totally and utterly false. Your vote really doesn't matter, and the math proves it.

In an online article, a trio of mathematicians have concluded that the average person's odds of casting the deciding vote in an election amount to something like 60 million to one. To put that in perspective, you're more likely to get struck by lightning (twice), hit the Powerball jackpot, or die this year- from being bitten by a dog. That's certainly heartening to us optimists who like to proclaim our utmost value to the electoral process.

Obviously, if you live in a so-called "swing state," your odds are much greater (that is to say, still essentially zip) that you'll cast the single vote that decides the election. Also, the closeness of the race is a huge factor. In a close race, you are more likely to cast a deciding vote. I'd say that the current race between Obama and McCain is slightly beyond "close." You could call it close to being close. The closer it gets, the slightly more valuable our votes become.

Now, I'm sure I'll raise many a blogger's ire when I say you'd be better off staying home than voting this coming Tuesday. If you live in a stubbornly blue state, like New York, or a reliably red one, like Texas, your vote is worthless. This coming election, your voice will not be heard. I'm not trying to discourage people or be pessimistic, I'm just telling the truth. And this is one bleak truth.

So, we're totally worthless when it comes to voting. What does this mean for all of us? It's interesting to think that we could all stay home on Election Day, and not vote, but then, we can carry this to the extreme: what if millions of people realized the worthlessness of their votes, and all stayed home? Suddenly, an individual's vote would be immensely important. It's like “vote deflation”- when there are less votes, the worth of each remaining one goes up.

This article also made me ponder the nature of a massive democratic election. Who's really going to make the difference in the election? An individual, as these mathematicians have proven, certainly will not. But as a group, we citizens have real power- the power to elect the next "leader of the free world." If our individual votes are essentially worthless, how does that translate into a powerful electoral bloc?

To look at it mathematically, you could say that an individual's vote is worth an infinitely small amount of influence. But, after adding up all these infinitely unimportant votes, we arrive at an actual value. That doesn't make sense- something which is worth an infinitely small amount can never, ever, get any larger when added to another infinitely small amount.

This means there is hope for us. Our votes are worth something. It's just such a small value, it seems like nothing- but it is something.

It also seems undemocratic that as individuals, we're powerless, and only become powerful when combined with others. That's a very un-American concept. America is all about democratic individualism, and yet, our electoral process totally discourages it. The election is more about mob psychology, group dynamics, and hive mentality than individualism. John McCain and Barack Obama don't care in the slightest about Joe Wurzelbacher, they only care about the tens of thousands of Joe the Plumbers. Our democracy is tragically impersonal, as the FOXNews article proves. And that's an unfortunate intrinsic characteristic of mass politics.

At least I can say that in primary elections, our votes are more likely to count, in two ways. First, there are more candidates running and a smaller electorate (since primaries are held within a single party), so there's a much greater chance that you'll cast a deciding vote. Secondly, there is a greater, more diverse field of candidates, so you actually get a choice, instead of being forced to choose between only two candidates.

I think we need to model our presidential elections more like the primary elections. We also need to end the hegemony that the Democrats and Republicans have over politics. Lastly, we might even need to reevaluate the value of the Electoral College. I've always advocated the Electoral College, because it ensures that overly populated states, like California, don't decide an election all on their own. But, the Electoral College, with its "winner take all" rule, totally drowns an individual's vote, and reduces it to near worthlessness.

I thought this article was interesting, and somewhat surprising. It attaches an actual, tangible (well, almost tangible- nobody can really imagine what 60 million is like), quantitative value to how much our votes are worth. And that value is next-to-zilch. How encouraging...

All the same, I'm still voting. There's some sort of psychological factor at play- like it's my duty or something. Perhaps I'm just being naive, though.