HOME / politics: Who's winning, who's losing, and why.

I Stand By My Nonvoting RecordMeg Whitman shouldn't apologize for not voting.

By Christopher BeamPosted Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2009, at 6:26 PM ET

Meg Whitman. Meg WhitmanWhen political candidates get criticized for their spotty voting records, it usually means they missed a few roll calls in the state house. Meg Whitman went a step further: She didn't even go to the polls on Election Day.

This is the latest charge against the California Republican gubernatorial candidate and former CEO of eBay, who first registered to vote in 2002, despite being eligible since 1974, according to a recent report by the Sacramento Bee. Whitman had previously acknowledged failing to vote "on several occasions" but had not revealed quite how many. "[I]t's surprising, and of some concern, that someone so seemingly uninterested in politics would suddenly want to govern what is perhaps the most ungovernable state in the union," opined the Los Angeles Times.

RSS

Whitman has apologized profusely. "Every citizen should take time to vote, and on more than one occasion, I didn't," she told GOP activists at a state convention earlier this year. "Voting is a precious gift handed down by generations of Americans. I regret not having delivered my vote on several occasions."

Whitman should save her breath: There is actually a good case for not voting.

Many economists have long argued that voting is, on the individual level, irrational. The main reason: Your vote does not matter. As statisticians love to point out, you're more likely to be struck by lightning on the way to the polls than to have your vote actually decide the election. Steven E. Landsburg explained the numbers in Slate in the context of the 2004 presidential election:

Your individual vote will never matter unless the election in your state is within one vote of a dead-even tie. (And even then, it will matter only if your state tips the balance in the Electoral College.) What are the odds of that? Well, let's suppose you live in Florida and that Florida's 6 million voters are statistically evenly divided—meaning that each of them has (as far as you know) exactly a 50/50 chance of voting for either Bush or Kerry—the statistical equivalent of a coin toss. Then the probability you'll break a tie is equal to the probability that exactly 3 million out of 6 million tosses will turn up heads. That's about 1 in 3,100—roughly the same as the probability you'll be murdered by your mother.

Turns out that's an overestimate. Factor in the reality that no election's likely outcome is exactly 50/50, plus the fact that California has many more voters than Florida, and you've got a probability so close to zero that, as Landsburg writes, you're more likely to win the Powerball jackpot thousands of times over than to swing the election.

Most Americans bridle at this argument—even if only a bare majority of them actually vote. They see voting as a civic duty. If voting makes you happy, say economists, go for it. Just don't pretend it's going to make a difference. If missing work, driving to the polls, standing in line, and navigating the ballot stresses you out, you can guiltlessly skip it.

The other response tends to be: What if everyone thought that way? But everyone doesn't think that way, and they're not likely to start. For the sake of argument, say they did. Say everyone in the United States stayed home on Election Day. In that case, says economist Gordon Tullock, "I would vote."

Whitman has an even more compelling reason not to vote: Until 2008, she was CEO of a Fortune 500 Company. She can influence the lives of Americans a lot more in an hour of work at her desk than in an hour spent at the polls—not to mention the time it takes to become a truly informed voter. "Perhaps society's best choice is for her to keep working and let the other people go vote," says economist Alexander Tabarrok of George Mason University. "That could quite possibly be optimal." Considering her other platforms—speeches, letters to the editor, meetings with other executives and politicians—voting is probably near the bottom of the list of ways she can influence public debate.

As a free marketer, Whitman is in an especially good position to make the case against voting. Free marketers like to argue that following your own self-interest leads to a maximally efficient outcome for society. Well, clearly not voting was at the time in Whitman's self-interest. (Or, for that matter, in any voter's self-interest.) Otherwise, she would have done it.

Of course, no politician would ever come out against voting. That would be like a CEO coming out against bonuses. Nor can Whitman argue that she was taking a principled stand and say she didn't vote because she wasn't sufficiently well-informed. That's no way to get elected, either.

But does she have to apologize? What Whitman should have done, says Tabarrok, is simple: not vote, and pay someone else who would have voted for a Democrat not to vote, too. That way, she could say she saved society resources—twice over!—without affecting the outcome of the election. If that didn't work? There's always selling her vote on eBay.

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

Christopher Beam is a Slate political reporter. Follow him on Twitter.

Photograph of Meg Whitman by David McNew/Getty Images.

COMMENTS

Most economists recognized long ago that people can derive intangible benefits from a transaction (psychic income) that are nonetheless just as real as financial benefits. Maximization of happiness is the actual goal. Though the tangible benefit of voting is very likely nil, there is a large benefit to be had in satisfaction for many.

So the real question is what sort of people do and don't derive such satisfaction from participating in the democratic process. And whatever your conclusion is about the latter should tell you what to think of Meg Whitman.

-- Mmmmm
(To reply, click here)

Well, if the free market argument for not apologizing is going to be aired, then consider that not apologizing may cost her votes. As long as more voters will penalize her for not apologizing than will reward her for the same, then it only benefits her to apologize.

Also, she could have registered years ago. Who would know if she actually voted? So the time would not have been spent waiting.

Also, let us not fool ourselves into believing all her time was spent productively affecting more people's lives when she wasn't voting. She has free time of her own. Studies also show some mental breaks can be productive.

And, given the technology of the day and of cell phones for the past decade, the time spent waiting in line is not necessarily wasted time.

-- anch
(To reply, click here)

Paying people to not vote? I'm not a lawyer, but this solution raises a question, to whit- If it's illegal to pay people to vote for their candidate, is it also illegal to pay people to not vote? I was under the impression that money can only legally influence elections through advertising, as opposed to cash payments to potential voters predicated on their voting behavior. On a personal note, though, I would LOVE to see a candidate explain PAYING SOMEONE TO NOT VOTE as a way of balancing their own choosing not to vote, followed by their encouraging people (suckers) to do what they were too busy to do.

-- SirReal
(To reply, click here)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES