Why you shouldn't vote

It's election day once again, our twice-a-decade or so chance to participate in the democratic process, to have our say, to express our judgement of the current government, to 'throw the rascals out' or award a mandate to some other group. Today most everybody is telling you to vote. You'll see television and internet ads, newspaper opinions, even Google implicitly telling you to vote. Twitter and Facebook, forums and blogs, are full of people urging you to vote. "You must vote," they say, "it is your duty to vote."

I often explain to people that voting is pointless in a practical sense, and inevitably people reply "So you're saying I shouldn't vote," confusing a positive statement with a normative one. I don't tell people they should not vote, I only describe an empirical fact. I have to back up and say "Hey, I never said you shouldn't vote. Just that you shouldn't feel motivated to vote because you think you're making a difference. If voting makes you happy, go for it." But here I'm going to say otherwise, and say what nobody else is sayong: You should not vote.

You should not vote, firstly because it makes no difference in the real world to whether you do or not. There have probably been millions of elections in the course of history (given that each country has hundreds of districts, multiple levels of government etc) and no significant election has ever turned on a single vote. We can say at least then, that the chance of any given election turning on a single vote is likely to be in the order of millions to one. Indeed, it has been calculated that the chance of a US presidential election turning on one vote is 100 million to one. Even if this were to occur of course, your vote only made a difference if you voted for the winner. So in such a competitive election, where the probability of you voting for the winner is about 50%, the probability that your vote will make a difference is 200 million.

It can be shown graphically how your vote makes no difference. The charts below show a situation where two parties, A and B, face off in a single member plurality election. In the first, you make the decision to vote and the result is 12 votes to party B and 10 to party A. Party B wins.



In the second, you make the decision not to vote and the result is 11 votes to party B and 10 to party A. Party B wins. It wins regardless of whether you vote or not.



There is then no significant practical gain from voting, you do not influence the outcome. Even supposing you did influence the outcome of a constituency election, it is very rare for a party to have a (bare or absolute) majority in the commons of one seat, and things are further complicated by the lords and the EU and the tendency for parties to rescind on their election promises, so you still wouldn't have a significant, predictable influence on legislation.

This apparent irrationality of voting has long been noted and the paradox that people continue to vote regardless has been discussed at length. Most conclude, and indeed there's much evidence to suggest, that people vote for two reasons: 1) Because it makes them feel good, to participate, exercise their right, make their voice heard etc and more importantly 2) to avoid the costs of not voting, because there is a perceived 'duty to vote' which leads people to feel guilty and be shamed by their friends and family if they do not. Being seen to vote, and thus to be civic minded and responsible, is a major benefit, and why introducing postal voting usually leads to a fall in turnout rather than an increase.

Usually this is all considered well and good. Voting is thought important in a collective sense, we need some people to vote, yet it would be irrational for any individual to vote unless they got some private benefit like feeling satisfied for gaining standing amongst their peers. If it makes people feel good, there's nothing wrong with it, and it fulfils an important political function.

I disagree. People should not feel good about voting. They should not because they are participating only in a bankrupt system, they are legitimizing a government which deserves no legitimacy and perpetuating the self-sacrificing, debasing and utterly destructive philosophy of duty to the state.

"But if nobody voted..." then government would observably have no legitimacy and people would see it for the morally destitute institution it is.

The only duty you have on election day is not to engage with the most destructive force known to man. Don't make a pact with the devil, he doesn't deserve your vote for or against.