Seriously, my fellow lefties...

[Torie]

I'd be convinced by this if my state and my CD weren't both Titanium D. I'll be voting on the Massachusetts ballot measures, but not for any elected office.

There is more to an election than who the winner is. The margin matters: if Hillary wins by 1 point, it will have very different implications for the future of US political discourse than if she wins by 10.

I don't like Hillary enough to want to give her 'a mandate' but I do hate Trump enough to want to give him an anti-mandate, so I've already considered this and it was actually a very hard choice.

I'm actually semi-convinced by the idea that the best outcome would be a Hillary landslide but only modest Democratic downballot gains, as a repudiation of Trump specifically so the pro-Trump Republicans can't spin it to be about something else.

Correct. Just lose the "semi."

[Torie]

It's pretty much yet another thing I dislike about the electoral collage system. "I live in a safe state, so I don't have to make a difficult choice." All right, no sane person would claim it would enable Trump to carry Massachusetts or Clinton to carry Oklahoma, but there are many less solid states that people take for granted already. Yes, one single vote won't decide the election, but a number of such single votes can. I think the expression "death by a thousand of paper cuts" fits here very well. I'm not trying to be hyperbolic here, but history is full of races that were considered safe and that's why it turned the other way.

Tactical voting in single member districts happens in many countries. It's not just about the EC and WTA states. Depending on the specific election laws there can be different goals for a tactical vote. For example, in IL there is a 5% threshold test for parties to have easier ballot access. If a person wants to promote a minor party in future elections, and the outcome of the race in their jurisdiction isn't in doubt, then a minor party vote can be quite meaningful. The Greens have maintained major party status in some jurisdictions (like IL-05 and IL-12) by continuing to break 5% there. If Stein got over 5% statewide the Greens would have ballot access in all races in 2018.

Did you just admit that you are voting for Stein?

[Torie]

The utility here is how I'd like to see my government run now and in the future.

But that's the problem right here: your vote almost certainly won't affect your utility in this regard, because the probability that your vote determines the winner of the election is quasi-null (even in a local election with only a few thousand total votes, it's still infinitesimal). Did you read the rest of my post in which I explained that?

Also, if I'm doing a poor job explaining it, here's the relevant wiki article, since obviously I'm not the one who came up with all this stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting

I'm familiar with the paradox, which is why I couched my preference as a marginal utility. I perceive a difference in utility between an action which would have an impact 0.001% of the time and one which would have an impact 0.0001% of the time. That percentage increase in the outcome is an increase in my utility and affects the actual margin where one vote might matter. My vote doesn't have to be the precise tipping point vote for this utility of likelihood to matter to me. I also appreciate that the difference between infinitessimal probabilities may have no effect on other people's utility, even though they do for me.

The utility of likelihood is not the only factor to consider of course. It has to be convoluted with my utility in seeing different candidates actually win if I were to determine the utility of of any particular vote. Most of the time the direct utility of having a particular winner dominates as a factor. My point is only that for me I have faced elections where I have thought about these likelihoods before voting.

I understand your argument regarding how you choose to vote. What I don't understand is what your marginal utility of voting compared to not voting is. Surely, voting takes you some time, you might have to drive and it might screw up your schedule. Those are minor inconveniences, sure, but since the expected utility of the voting outcome is so low, they should still matter.

Good question. It made me think about it for a bit.

After thinking about my motives, I would conclude that the ability to impact the race is a small factor for deciding to vote. It does help that most ballots have a number of contested races, so that the probability of my vote having an impact is greater by the ability to influence many races at once. Nonetheless that's probably not where the utility arises.

When I first voted, I know I got the highest utility from the satisfaction of seeing how the process worked - essentially satisfying my curiosity. That same goal was important when I relocated to grad school and then after grad school. It is still a non-trivial factor when new election technologies came to my polling place. In one election I chose to drive some distance to vote early just to use the technology that was different than in my polling place. I'm a scientist and seeing the process first hand has real value to me.

However I think for most elections I find utility in the knowledge that I'm participating in this public process that exceeds the costs associated with voting. Voting history is public, so it's not just a matter of personal pride, but one of shared pride with others in the community. That would fall into the category of an emotional utility. Also, I have learned that local officials know who the voters are, and are more likely to turn to voters than non-voters for advice and help in the community. That stems in large part from the officials' knowledge that voters have that shared community pride. That's a utility beyond the merely emotional. Of course if one wants to then run for office, having a history of voting turns out to have utility above and beyond that shared community pride.

Exactly. We have it "right" now.