No confidence in the vote
Why ballots make me cross
Economists have known for a while that it is not rational to vote. Though I am a human poisoned by our foibles and neuroses, I attempt to follow the evidence-based doctrine of reason wherever I can, and so I don’t vote. However, mulling this over recently, I decided something even more extreme: I’m not even sure that the right to vote is a right I’d be particularly bothered about defending.
That’s going to take some justifying, so let’s start from the top: why is it not rational to vote? A ‘rational’ choice in this context is one where the benefits of an option exceed its costs. The cost of wasting half an hour going to the polling station and putting a cross on the ballot paper is larger than the effect you can hope that cross might have.
Firstly, there is only a very small chance that your vote will decide the election. How often are elections won by a single vote? Never, give or take: the last time it happened in a UK general election (the example we will run with from here on in) was in 1910, and there have been well over 10,000 attempts since—give or take five hundred constituencies in twenty-four general elections. Every vote after the n + 1th vote, where n corresponds to the number of votes the other party got, is a vote wasted. If your candidate wins by more than a single vote, your vote was literally pointless, as the result would be unchanged had you not bothered. Proportional representation is little help in this scenario. The number of candidates is still far smaller than the number of voters, and so you simply need to ask what the chance is of your one vote adding an extra candidate to your chosen party’s roster: still pretty minuscule.
Even if you do drag your candidate to a hair’s-breadth victory, however, it’s not plain sailing. Do you agree with everything your guy stands for, and everything his party will whip him to vote for? Not likely. Indeed, if you were to take the percentage of things you agree with that your candidate stands for, and the percentage of things the person in second place stood for which you agree with, and subtract them, that’s the percentage bothered you should be. You could weight things by the relative importance of each issue if you like. Regardless, given the homogeneity in UK politics at the moment, that percentage ain’t likely very big.
OK, so let’s assume that you agree 100% with the candidate you caused to win, and the person your vote defeated was the evil half-robot love-child of Nick Griffin, Jeremy Clarkson and Stalin. Your new MP will now have to vote in Parliament, on your behalf: and he’s one of over six hundred MPs. How often are crucial bills carried by one vote? In over 3,000 votes since Labour came to power in 1997, there has been one tie and two one-vote victories. Admittedly, there is slightly more to being an MP and lawmaking and all that than voting in the Commons, so it’s best to take the 1 in 1,000 with a pinch of salt, but it’s still a good first estimate.
So the benefits of voting are pretty useless. What’s the cost? Well, if we assume you can walk for free to the polling station, all you personally lose is the time. Pricing your free time is pretty tricky, but we can safely assume half an hour is worth a couple of quid even if you’re on the minimum wage. Then, there’s the public cost of putting on the election, and the most recent figure I can find for that is £80m, from 2001. That’s another handful of quid per voter.
So, in round figures, would you give a fiver to a man selling magic beans which he tells you have perhaps, optimistically, a one in 100,000 chance of working? Rationally, the beans’ benefit would have to be worth more than £500,000 for you to pay him the money—which is only worth it if your MP is in favour of a bill which will somehow make you £500,000 better off. Let’s be slightly less cynical and assume you’re a lovely, altruistic voter—the policy improvements you are hoping he will be responsible for would have to be so good, you’d happily part with half a million quid to see them effected.
So, there’s no point voting. The universal come-back is ‘But, Statto, what if everyone thought that, and no-one voted? Then, a single vote, would be able to win an election, and it might be worth voting again!! Ha ha! So we should vote after all!’ Well, er, yes, it probably would be worth voting in this strange scenario, but the fact is that it’s a long way from reality. People simply aren’t going to stop voting, and your personal strategy should not change until the day they do. If no-one voted, we would be playing a very different game: this comeback is like you spending half an hour telling me a brilliant, intricate, victory-guaranteeing chess set-up, and me saying ‘So, does that manoeuvre still work if the pawns have chainsaws, ride dragons and are invincible?’ ‘Er, no, Statto, and Dungeons & Dragons club is thataway.’
So, QED, voting is a spurious waste of time. You certainly shouldn’t bother, since you’ll waste your time and energy and it won’t make any difference. But are there any reasons to condemn the wider institution of elected government? Well, er, yes.
Voting might be a good thing if people used their (miniscule) power for good, but the evidence is surely that people don’t. When I voted in the past, I felt that I should be extremely careful with my new privilege, and I wasted hours poring over manifestos, keeping up with election news and learning about my local candidates. To do otherwise, I felt, would have been a tragic waste of a responsibility I had waited nearly two decades to be allowed to exercise. What an idiot I was—if walking to the polling station is more effort than voting is worth, days of research and brain-wracking, like, totally is. Luckily, most people seem to be more rational than me—they barely bother to find out anything at all. If they do, they choose based on self-interest for whichever party will minimise their personal tax burden; decide through lifetime party allegiances (which are probably perceived to be ideological, but clearly can’t be since some Labour safe seats are still safe seats even after the party has transformed from its socialist roots into a government arguably right of the Tories); base their choice on comment, opinion and scandals in the media (and remember that most people read The Sun); or, worst of all, some may decide to follow or shun the crowd based on opinion polls, where popular acclaim itself breeds or discourages success at the ballot box, thus turning the entire election into a complex, chaotic, metastable feedback process which makes my little head hurt.
How can we expect such a system to average out at the right answer when there is no incentive structure to make people vote intelligently for the greater good, but plenty of reasons that they might make uninformed, selfish or plain random decisions?
So, what can you do? I don’t want to get all reassuring and spoil my flow but—it’s OK, there are alternatives to wasting your life voting. You can write to your MP (which surely has a better chance of getting your issue recognised than the 1 in 10,000 probability you have at the ballot box); you can campaign about an issue and raise awareness of it, thus getting a load of idiots who haven’t read this article to vote on your behalf, and therefore punch significantly above your feeble political weight (just make sure you don’t vote yourself, unless you feel that the act itself will galvanise your supporters); you could run a protest, write to the local paper, become a journalist, Hell, become an MP, and you could make a bigger (though not necessarily big) difference. The act of voting might deserve a shred of credibility if it was the only voice you had—but there are plenty of far superior alternatives if you want to make yourself heard.
So voting is pointless for individuals, possibly harmful en masse, and certainly less persuasive than the alternatives. Time to crack out the Winston Churchill quotation: ‘Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried.’ We come crawling back like a down-trodden wife to democracy because, even though he doesn’t understand us, at least he didn’t beat us with a rake like dictatorship did.
However, it’s really not obvious that democracy is so great anyway. Pit it against a crackpot homicidal dictator or the decrepit and self-serving pseudo-communists who tend to ‘four legs good, two legs better’ their way into power after people’s revolutions, and it manifestly comes out on top. However, surely we could have a more healthy debate than that and pit it against some credible alternatives rather than a straw man in a brown shirt. One idea which occurred to me: why not make government a citizens’ jury type affair, where people are picked at random every few years to represent society? Perhaps we should make some of them serve longer terms to provide some continuity (though in the absence of elections there’s little incentive for short-termism anyway), and, Hell, let’s throw in an IQ test for good measure. Surely that’s a system which is not so transparently stupid that it can be dismissed out of hand. Equally, it’s not perfect, I’m sure someone’s thought of it before, and I’m sure there are other systems of government, or alterations to that idea, which could be up for debate. I’d like to see some refinement of my back-of-the-envelope sketch of a government, and indeed some actual evidence that it might be better…but whilst there are non-idiotic alternatives out there, why are you such a determined advocate of voting, eh?
One possible benefit of democracy is the feeling of well-being and enfranchisement it bestows upon voters. Through the act of casting a ballot, one becomes part of the political system and, were 'rational' idiots like me to enforce our anti-voting stance, there might be riots as people felt their right snatched from them. Voting, in this paradigm, is a national sugar pill to keep the populace sweet. It is not entirely clear whether abolition of voting would increase or decrease political involvement, however. It could be that voting provides a simple, token gesture which people feel absolves them of further contribution to the decision-making process, and that being forced to engage in a less anonymous and pointless way would increase participation rather than reduce it. Conversely, this increase in participation may create a surfeit of information for the new regime to process which would result in any one piece of it being as irrelevant as a vote, but significantly more costly to administer and evaluate.
The ultimate question is what qualities you seek in a system of government. I would argue you’re basically after an efficient method of resource allocation which conspires to allocate those resources towards the greatest good for the greatest number. I see no evidence that the ‘asking the people to choose their representatives every few years’ part of our current system of government helps us realise this ambition; thus, I have decided that voting is not only something it’s not rational do, but it’s not even a right I’d be especially enthusiastic about defending.
Am I an evil horseman of the apathy apocalypse, disengaging voters with my pathetic rant? Well hopefully yes—since voting is pointless, I’m only dissuading them from something which isn’t worthwhile. There is even a call to action—don’t vote, certainly, but do seriously examine the received wisdom that democracy is the pinnacle of systems of government.
There are certainly worse things than democracy—but would you really chain yourself to stuff Suffragette-style to defend your irrelevant right to a cross on a bit of paper?
Addendum
This argument goes down like a lead balloon at parties. (Why do I always adopt deeply unpopular political positions?) You will find yourself besieged on all sides by people who are sure they can rationalise voting, and are very cross that you're taking a snipe at the political system they know and love. The problem is that my position is correct—a few decades of economists and sociologists have worried about the rationality of individual voting, and therefore we can be fairly confident there are no flaws left to be exposed—and therefore the conversation will rapidly degenerate into the ‘you’re wrong…because you are! You smell…because you do!’ school, not necessarily because your débutantes are idiots, but simply because there isn’t a working comeback in spite of the fact that this comprehensive undermining of democracy makes people (me included) very uneasy.
I would be very interested to know to what extent our society indoctrinates us as to the benefits of democracy. Anecdotally, three times in as many weeks I have had political or economic positions I’ve assumed in conversation dismissed out-of-hand as ‘communism’, as though use of this label is a legitimate method of discrediting a policy suggestion. My possibly-legitimate hypothesis is that perhaps nearly a century of anti-commie, pro-voting propaganda has left us with very strong feelings in favour of democracy. So, just to reiterate the call to action: question that received wisdom.
Postscript
To concentrate on slagging off my citizens’ jury idea is to totally miss the point.
Mark Rodgers says (00:11 02/06/2009) ¶
My solution? Ask a swiss guy (or lady, I suppose I should say) how they do it. They have democracy in spades.
Mark
Russell says (09:12 02/06/2009) ¶
This is a very well-written article, however I disagree with it on so many levels I'm not sure where to start! For instance, be careful when you talk about rationality in an economic context - it has a very limited meaning and is itself subject to extensive criticism as a construct of the neo-classical school. Therefore I believe that your assertion that it is rational not to vote is at best misleading. You should say something like "economists have asserted for a while...".
Also, it is rather cheap to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow foolish and does not understand the argument.
Statto says (09:55 02/06/2009) ¶
Mark:
Even though the Swiss vote a lot, every referendum or election is still subject to the same problems discussed above. Majority votes for discrete options render individuals irrelevant.
Russell:
I’m not sure the criticisms of rational choice theory apply in this case. It is certainly a discredited model for mass behaviour (as exemplified by the fact that people do seem to vote) but I see no reason why it is not an appropriate framework for consequentialist decision-making, with caveats in the (very many) cases where costs and benefits have uncertainties attached (and I’d argue voting is one which doesn’t fall into the category of particularly uncertain).
I’ve never suggested people who disagree are foolish—indeed, I state explicitly in my addendum that people who disagree with this position are often not idiots!
Russell says (13:56 02/06/2009) ¶
Statto:
Fair enough. Although I'd point out that you say people are not idiots but also attribute idiotic arguments to them...
You are, unfortunately, wrong concerning elections decided by a single vote. A quick search reveals that the seat of Worksop North East was tied in the local council elections in 2000. Clearly in this case a single vote would place all of the power in the hands of a single voter! If you are willing to extend your criterion further, the seat of Winchester was decided by 2 votes in the general election of 1997. This is splitting hairs, I know, but it is important to get these things right.
Next, I can see that you go on to make the valid point about the fact that you may not agree with every policy of the candidate you vote for, however you should really consider the opportunity cost of the other guy getting in. You vote for someone not because you believe in everything they stand for, but because you think the other alternatives would be even worse. To suggest that you are likely to agree with every policy of any large political organisation is panglossian to say the least!
Finally let us consider the analogy with your favourite issue - climate change. Surely your argument equates to me saying that my own carbon emissions are so negligible compared to the global total that I shouldn't worry about reducing them. It would certainly be more "rational" for me to drive my car from Oxford to RAL every day, rather than riding my bike, because it is quicker and costs me less (if you factor in the cost of my time vs the cost of petrol).
Matt in the Hat says (14:19 02/06/2009) ¶
You say that if my candidate wins by more than one vote then my vote was pointless, but my vote is not a single, individualy determined action: it is a response to the situation determined by my upbringing and social history. The message put forward by the candidate causes me (and others similar to me) to react in a particular way.
Your argument is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once you cease to vote your position of your vote being irrelevant immediately becomes true.
How do you know that it is your vote that is irrelevant? Maybe it's a thousand other people in your constituency who are irrelevant and your vote actually matters. That, of course, is bollocks because your vote is exactly the same as their vote is. Whilst the importance of a vote is inversely proportional to the number of (participating) voters just because our population increase has caused the number to tend toward zero, it ain't zero. Yes, voters vote for spurious reasons but politicians also react for similarly spurious reasons. If your vote can decrease their majority they may be stupid enough to act differently.
Couldn't your rationale be applied to climate change? I only make a small impact, miniscule in fact, so I can do whatever I want? I'd been planning on taking the train down to Bristol later in the month but the flights are much cheaper...
Statto says (14:20 02/06/2009) ¶
Russell:
I’m not wrong on the voting stats, I just limited myself to general elections for my own sanity! I would guess the odds are slightly better in local elections because wards are smaller than constituencies, but councillors also have less effect so it all probably averages out, give or take. If anyone can provide statistics which undermine this in a non-wacko electoral system, I’d be interested to see them.
On opportunity costs, I do include the costs of the other guy getting in by asking that you subtract the percentage agreement of your guy from that of the person in second place. Then, I go on to neglect that fact and assume that your guy is 100% lovely and the other guy is a total git, because the only difference that percentage will make is to slightly reduce odds which are already hundreds of thousands or millions to one. I don’t see that this is a serious criticism of the argument; the main problem is still that elections are so rarely decided by a single vote.
The argument does indeed pretty much equate to arguing that individual emissions are negligible. This is why I advocate a carbon price—it puts in place an incentive structure which forces consumers away from high-carbon activities and into low-carbon alternatives. I don’t believe they’re going to be good on their own (which is strange, because voting seems to be considered a moral imperative, whereas, say, not flying isn’t accorded that privilege—a strange and interesting psychological paradox). I suppose the equivalent would be deciding that failure of democracy would be a humanitarian crisis, and thus levying a fine on those who don’t vote. If the fine were worth more than my time walking to and from the ballot box, I would then feel compelled to vote. However, I’d not advocate said fine because I’m not sure the prerequisite, that not voting does one’s fellow citizens harm, is fulfilled.
Statto says (14:35 02/06/2009) ¶
Matt:
Yes, the problem is that the electoral victory is entirely unattributable. The rational choice argument applies solely to your decision to vote or not and, since your vote is well unlikely to matter, you shouldn’t bother because there are better things you could be doing with that half hour of your life.
I agree. One of the possible pros of voting is that it gives elected officials a feeling of accountability which may go some way to incentivising good policy decisions. Sadly, of course, what it really incentivises is crass populism. Democracy advocates have to argue that the combination of elected officials’ pandering to the public and maybe even their conscience result in the optimal allocation of resources, and that other incentive structures would result in a less optimal outcome.
Russell says (17:11 02/06/2009) ¶
Interestingly, it turns out that there are lots of countries where voting is indeed compulsory, and one is fined for not voting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting
It'd be interesting to see (for someone sufficiently bothered to look into this carefully) what the results of such a system would be, as it might inform potential future policies on carbon pricing. Obviously the analogy isn't perfect, but it might still be useful. Do lots of people just pay the fine, or do they avoid the fine but vote for joke candidates as a form of protest? I don't imagine many Bolivians take the former option, as apparently it involves not being able to access your own bank account for 3 months!
Superman to the rescue! says (21:48 02/06/2009) ¶
Ahhh, people's comments are getting longer and longer! Afraid in response to: "...I state explicitly in my addendum that people who disagree with this position are often not idiots!" I stopped reading your article well before because, well, life is just too short.
What I would say is that I'm afraid I'm with Russell, although your argument is a good effort, ultimately it is does not really stand up to any scrutiny, sorry Statto! Let us take the extreme case of your idea, what would happen if nobody ever voted on anything? Do you really think this is a basis for a society? Where do you draw the line and if you do think voting is a necessity then does it not defeat the whole argument that you are trying to put across? Or are you suggesting dictatorship as a way forward?
Superman to the rescue! says (21:49 02/06/2009) ¶
apologies for some silly grammar errors...
Statto says (21:53 02/06/2009) ¶
Oh come on ‘Superman’, surely you can do better than to rubbish my argument by making flawed points I have refuted in the main text which you admit to not having bothered to read.
Nickylad says (07:46 03/06/2009) ¶
Interesting read though and made a laugh a wee bit though it's simplifiication of dis-ultity of voting, for instance whilst you saw researching party ideologies and keeping abreast of the news as a waste of effort people like Edward Jolleys take a great deal of smugness from it, particularly in a pub setting when they can recall the most trivial story to moan about the housing market or currency markets - though obviously given you're assuming rational expectations that is irrelevant.
It's all irrelevant for me I'm in Prague and unable to vote - before someone tells me there's a some way I can do it online or get a family member to do it for me I'd rather stay away in the of chance Britain sends the BNP to Europe I can distance myself from it. Though nothing would please me more than sending smug UKIP buggers to the EU and watch them rape the expenses system with the best of them..
Anyway enough of killing time, exam in two hours on of all things, whether europe should adopt a US style social insurance.. my I'd love to see how the french would take that..
Graeme says (17:51 03/06/2009) ¶
No point in taking on your whole argument really, especially since I've had a go a few times at coffee, but I will have a go at your citizens jury. I can think of a few reasons why it is a worse system of government than democracy.
Firstly, a citizens jury would have absolutely no accountability to anyone. They would be accountable only to themselves unless you installed some higher power, which could lead to dictatorship, which we have already pointed out is worse than democracy.
Your idea of having an IQ test is a bit disturbing as well. This effectively strips power from some part population based entirely on something possibly decided before they are born. This strikes me as scarily similar to forms of Faccism, only whites may have control, only men may have control, only those with an IQ greater than 100 may have control, what's the difference? Some people are not born with a high IQ, this does not stop them from being an effective member of society and deserving a say in how it is run.
Another thing which you are keen on that isn't climate change is journalism. I worry that in any system of government that isn't Democracy, it would lead to a suppression of freedom of speech. If someone does not have to worry about losing power, which in a citizens jury is guaranteed, then they do not need to listen to what anyone else has to say, so why allow anyone to say what they want.
As a law making institution a citizens jury also would not work. They could simply rewrite the law to keep themselves in power. They would also have to have control over the military. If your juror's happened to be for some reason extremely anti French, then what incentive do they have for not nuking Paris?
As a more effective and fair form of government it is not an option. I hope this argument has highlighted some of the benefits of living in a democratic country, this argument may not even be possible in a non-democratic country!
If there is a better form of government I'd like to hear about it and I promise I will keep an open mind. However, I firmly believe that democracy itself is not he problem, merely the systems of democracy that we have governing us. I can only really comment on the British government since I do not know enough about how things are done in other countries, but an immediate suggestion for improvement would be to have a fully elected upper house who can hold their seats for an extremely long time (10+ years), this would encourage some people governing us to take a longer term view, which seems to be one of your major concerns. This house would have to be given extra powers compared to the current House of Lords and you can wave goodbye to the Parliament Act.
It ain't perfect, but for accountability and for looking after the general welfare of a country Democracy is the best option. It doesn't necessarily mean you statistically matter (from a purely rational point of view, I haven't found any flaws in that argument), but voting is a way I can show I care that I live in a free country and who knows it might make a difference. Therefore I think it is worth the time and couple of pounds to make this point!
Also a quick note on your addendum (sounds a bit rude). Communism is not the opposite of Democracy, they can go hand in hand (this has not yet been achieved in practice) and I am a believer in both, at least in theory. Communism is the opposite of the free market and Democracy is the opposite of Dictatorship,
Statto says (20:52 03/06/2009) ¶
Graeme:
The accountability problem is surmountable: you could just make it possible for people to propose a petition of no confidence in their randomised representative which, if it got a threshold number of signatures, would boot them from office. I’m sure there are other ways, some may be better; suggestions welcome. Also, don’t forget that there are still plenty of non-voting ways to get your voice heard.
Why doesn’t the current government just rewrite the law to keep themselves in power? Thankfully, there are ‘checks and balances’ (seems to be the cliché du jour), but none of them is democratic: we can’t vote to stop it happening.
As for IQ tests, that was a bit of a throwaway remark, but just to defend it a bit: wouldn’t you rather have people capable of comprehending the complex array of problems presented to a government doing the governing? I’d argue that that’s to the benefit of all people, regardless of their IQ. Also, though discriminatory exclusion may not be explicit in the current system, there is definitely a systematic bias in who becomes an MP: I’d guess that the Commons is not in any sense a representative cross-section of the populace (concrete example: it’s very short on ladies). Since I only care about the consequences of a system and not its intentions, I’d argue that the weird skews in contemporary politics undermine it in spite of its noble, egalitarian ideals. It’s not obvious whether the current system, or a randomised sample with intelligence screening would be fairer. I’m convincible; anecdotally, there are a few ’onest, ’ard-working miners’ sons in parliament, I just don’t know how many. Finally, there’s scant evidence about what mix of leaders makes for the best leadership. To take the women example, there is no guarantee that gender equality makes for the most successful government: it could be that a heavy skew one way leads to the greatest good for the greatest number. I suppose the point I was making originally is that skewing your leaders towards the bright leads to the greatest good.
I strongly agree with you that communism versus democracy is a false dichotomy. Our notions of right and left in politics describe two strange, arbitrary-ish baskets of economic, social and political views. For example, a highly redistributive government might make wages universal, but leave a free market in place for allocation of goods. Doubtless some would spit at that because it’s ‘communism’, but in the absence of a command economy it differs markedly from many of communism’s incarnations. Whatever a policy’s pros and cons, labelling it ‘socialist’ or ‘right-wing’ is woolly, imprecise and a bit of a waste of time.
Pistol Pete says (10:32 04/06/2009) ¶
Yo Statto,
What you say is of course true that in the grand scheme of things a single vote is highly unlikely to decide an outcome. It is also true that voting has got us little Bush into the white house and in charge of nuclear arsenal not once, but twice. Which I am surprised you had not mentioned. However, you could apply your reasoning to just about everything so what you are saying seems quite circular. Whilst it may well be in part logical, it is completely irrelevant. For example, blogging, there are millions of websites with people out there trying to get their opinion across but ultimately this article is not going to change anything. Was is it still worth writing? Should we on that basis get rid of the internet?
Also, a slight diversion in regard to IQ tests. If someone does well in an IQ test, the only thing that test tells us about the individual is that they are good at IQ tests. I do not think you can attribute a number between 50-170 to a person and expect that it will reflect accurately their intelligence.
Cheerio,
Pete
Statto says (10:45 04/06/2009) ¶
Pete:
Just because you could apply the reasoning to anything does not make it circular or wrong: indeed, it makes it all the more disturbing. One of the things I am worrying about at the moment is how to create a government which assimilates the desires of a population and the requirements of ethics and fairness into policies. Since there are loads of people, this is undoubtedly very hard. Suggestions welcome.
I agree that IQ tests are not ideal. Again, I refer you to the fact that it was a parenthetical suggestion, but what I should have typed was that we would want to apply some kind of test to the representatives which evidence demonstrated led us to the best government. I posit that this test would focus heavily on ascertaining the intelligence of the candidate. Your argument that all IQ tests test is ability at IQ tests is as general as my arguments about voting: all exams only examine ability at that exam, but it seems that, for example, employers like people with degrees because performance in one specific year’s biology exams, say, correlates with how good an employee they will make.
Ruth says (11:48 05/06/2009) ¶
I think it's possible that you are disregarding the social and political effects of other information which comes out of election results. Two important numbers which can have a wider impact are the margin which the winner achieves over the closest runner up, and the turn out. Aside from possibly influencing the decision of other people whether or not to go out and vote in the next election to come along ("Wow, only 16% of people in my ward voted, I should really get my arse in gear next time"), they also indicate the strength of mandate which a political party has. These numbers also play an important part in influencing the attitude of the press, who wield an almost unhealthy influence over politics in Britain.
Whilst it's true that you may not influence the result, you may be able to have a subtler effect on where politics goes in the future.
Statto says (11:02 08/06/2009) ¶
Ruth:
So slightly rephrase the argument and ask whether the miniscule alteration in voting statistics will have an effect worth a fiver to you…still a bit of a stretch, no?