If the value of a vote is, as Landsburg claimed, zero, then the value of a bloc of 100 votes is also zero, both because zero times 100 (or anything else) is still zero, and because in a large population, it's "unlikely" that the outcome of a vote will be within one hundred votes. And you can extend this argument pretty far before the latter issues goes away.

It makes much more sense to view the value of a vote as being the total value of the election, divided by the margin. It is not only the final deciding vote that matters; every voter who helps put their candidate in the victorious position has contributed equally. So in an election decided by 50,000 votes, and you value the outcome of the election at $100B, each vote was worth $2M.

If you believe the outcome of an election is very valuable -- if you think, for instance, that President Gore would not have wasted trillions of dollars in the sands of Iraq, would not have squandered another decade doing nothing about the threat of global warming, and so on -- then even if you follow Landsburg's idiotic methodology, a minute chance of being the deciding vote may be very valuable indeed. After the fact, you may say to yourself, "Well, we won by 50,000 votes, there was no need for me to go out to vote," but before the election, the expected value of your vote is quite high. And if you go with the more sensible "divide by the margin" approach, your vote is probably the most valuable thing you own.

Actually he didn't say it was zero. He said it was very close to zero. Which in strictly financial terms is certainly correct.

*** It makes much more sense to view the value of a vote as being the total value of the election, divided by the margin ***

No, actually, it does not. In economics, it is only rational to consider the benefit TO YOU, and the benefit to you is certainly not billions. Once you start considering the benefit to society as a whole, you are getting into pure altruism, which fits into classical economics about as well as general relativity fits with quantum mechanics (which, trust me on this, is not well).

Landsburg's claims are not his own, by the way. Any economist will tell you the same thing.

Voting is actually explained well by behavioral economics, which recognizes that humans are not profit-maximizing machines (imagine!). I have a post on it above.

"In economics, it is only rational to consider the benefit TO YOU"

Um, you've never heard of the concept of Marginal Social Benefit and Marginal Social Cost?

I have taught economics, so I do not need to be told what "any economist" will tell you, TYVM.

See also:

<link>

Correct me if my logic is in error, but according to your argument, Auros, it would make sense for me to spend several hours searching for a penny. No one can claim that a trillion pennies isn't a lot of money. If there is indeed an "economic" benefit in a given person's decision to vote it can only be understood in terms of that person's satisfaction at having fulfilled a perceived social responsibility and proudly cast their ballot for one of two maniacs threatening Iran with total destruction.