Why Should You Vote?

It is a common question asked particularly among the youth, usually accompanied by two arguments: first, that it makes no difference who’s in power; and second, that your vote will make no difference to the result. Whilst I unequivocally disagree with the first reason, I am sure there are others more qualified than me who can write far more eloquent pieces on why politics does matter. What I will attempt to address in this opinion piece is the second argument, perhaps the one with a less obvious answer.

The reason it is less obvious is that it is completely true that you will not cast the deciding vote, and so the outcome won’t change if you show up to the polling station. Whilst the debate could be had about the reason for this—with First Past the Post cited as the bane of our democracy—I would argue that elections not being decided by tiny margins is an inherent fact in any society with a population greater than 10 (this is not a defence of FPTP). Hence, the logical thing to do is not to waste your time voting, right? Wrong—well, at least partially.

This can be explained somewhat through an analogy a friend told me not too long ago (essentially Newcomb’s Problem), which I thought applicable to the scenario of voting, although it is not a perfect comparison. The analogy goes as follows: you are at a fun fair and see a line to a tent with a sign saying ‘money to be won’. You queue until it is your turn to enter the tent. You walk in and are greeted by two boxes, and a robot who asks if you would like to play the game, which you accept. The robot then tells you the rules: you have to choose to take either one or both of the boxes, which may or may not have money in them. The robot also says that it is a supercomputer that has attempted to predict what you would decide. If the computer thought you would pick one box, it would put £1 million in the box it thought you would pick, and £100 in the box it thought you wouldn’t pick. If it thought you would pick both boxes, both would be empty. It also told you it had, in the past, predicted what people would pick with 100% accuracy. The catch is that the contents of the boxes had been decided before you walked into the tent. The money was either there or not, and nothing you could do in the moment would change that. The logical thing to do is to pick both boxes, because if there is money, you get £1 million and £100, and if there is no money, you would get £0 no matter your choice.

The question then becomes: what would you pick? Personally, I thought it best to stick with the illogical option of one box, because if there is money, you only cede £100 and yet gain £1 million. This is because the computer knows what you will pick, even if the outcome is predetermined. However, what it is predetermined by is your actions, choices, and integrity, and whilst the best outcome is for the computer to think you will choose one and yet you take both, this simply is unrealistic.

Now to draw the comparison to voting: the computer is like politicians, who hold your fate in their hands. Even though, logically, you should not waste your time voting, I believe you should, for it is a matter of personal integrity and intent, signalled to government: that you are not apathetic; that they must take your views and needs into account; and that you are willing to make the illogical choice of giving your time to vote. It is only then that the ‘computer’ will put the money in your box. Of course, the major impact is had in numbers, but this starts at the level of an individual: it starts with you not being greedy and going for the extra £100. Hence, I am asking you to make the illogical decision both for the collective and for yourself and your integrity. If this is not a large enough incentive, then do it in case you ever walk into a tent with a supercomputer offering you money and you can be sure the money is in there—because it knows you are willing to make the illogical choice to make it the logical one. Because that is where we truly win.