The first assignment I submitted for my economics class was based on this post on the economic irrationality of voting. The final assignment is to go back and criticise that.

Neoclassical microeconomics does not give enough emphasis to transaction costs. In particular, calculating which behaviour is optimal has a high cost. Gathering all the data and doing all the math to choose the right option costs time and resources. If we tried to make optimal economic decisions, “analysis paralysis” would result.

Instead, economic agents use heuristics to approximate solutions under bounded rationality (“satisficing”). For example, voters could use a loss aversion heuristic: the cost of living under a bad government is higher than the cost of voting, so even though the chance of a bad government winning the election is low, it’s worth voting just in case.

Social costs and benefits are also glossed over in neoclassical microeconomics. For example, you’ll see your neighbours at your local voting place – this could be an opportunity for social interaction or members of your social group may notice if you don’t vote. Decreasing voter turn-out could be caused by a decrease in geographic social ties. If you admit to not voting, there may be social penalties.

Finally, neoclassical microeconomics assumes the possibility of static equilibrium. But economies may be dynamic systems that never settle on a state. For example, the marginal value of voting may be close to zero, but if everyone but me chooses not to vote, then my vote has a huge value (I can elect myself dictator). As the voter turn-out drops, the value of each vote increases: so more people should vote.

Mandatory voting could increase the cost of not voting. Tax rebates for voting could increase the benefits of voting. But I think the psychology of behavioural economics has a lot more promise for increasing voter turn-out.