Why You Should Vote to Change the Outcome

Philosophy and Public Affairs 48 (4):422-446 (2020)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Prevailing opinion—defended by Jason Brennan and others—is that voting to change the outcome is irrational, since although the payoffs of tipping an election can be quite large, the probability of doing so is extraordinarily small. This paper argues that prevailing opinion is incorrect. Voting is shown to be rational so long as two conditions are satisfied: First, the average social benefit of electing the better candidate must be at least twice as great as the individual cost of voting, and second, the chance of casting the decisive vote must be at least 1/N, where N stands for the number of citizens. It is argued that both of these conditions are often true in the real world.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
First archival date: 2020-10-01
Latest version: 2 (2020-10-01)
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
2,974 ( #1,189 of 70,145 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
424 ( #955 of 70,145 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.