Skip to main content
Log in

Memetics and voting: how nature may make us public spirited

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Game Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We consider the classic puzzle of why people turn out for elections in substantial numbers even though formal analysis strongly suggests that rational agents would not vote. If one assumes that voters do not make systematic mistakes, the most plausible explanation seems to be that agents receive a warm glow from the act of voting itself. However, this begs the question of why agents feel a warm glow from participating in the electoral process in the first place. We approach this question from a memetic standpoint. More specifically, we consider a model in which social norms, ideas, values, or more generally, “memes”, influence the behavior of groups of agents, and in turn, induce a kind of competition between value systems. We show, for a range of situations, that groups with a more public-spirited social norm have an advantage over groups that are not as public-spirited. We also explore conditions under which the altruistic behavior resulting from public-spiritedness is disadvantageous. The details depend on the costs of voting, the extent to which different types of citizens agree or disagree over the benefits of various public policies, and the relative proportions of various preference types in the population. We conclude that memetic evolution over social norms may be a force that causes individuals to internalize the benefits that their actions confer on others.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aldrich JH (1997) When is it rational to vote. In: Muller DC (eds) Perspectives on public choice, Chap 17. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni J (1990) Impure altruism and donations to public choice: a theory of warm-glow giving. Econ J 100:464–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni J (1995) Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: the effects of positive and negative framing on cooperation in experiments. Q J Econ 1–21

  • Becker G (1976) Altruism, egoism, and genetic fitness: economics and sociobiology. J Econ Liter 14:817–826

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom TC, Stark O (1993) How can altruism prevail in an evolutionary environment. Am Econ Rev 83:149–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Bester H, Guth W (1998) Is altruism evolutionarily stable? J Econ Behav Organization 34:193–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackmore S (1999) The meme machine Oxford University Press

  • Bolle F (2000) Is altruism evolutionarily stable? And envy and malevolence? Remarks on Bester and Guth. J Econ Behav Organization 42:131–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley J, Temimi A (2001) Endogenous enfranchisement when groups’ preferences conflict. J Polit Econ 109:79–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley JP, Toossi A, Wooders M (2005) Memetics and voting: how nature may make us public spirited. Working paper 0514, Department of Economics, Vanderbilt University

  • Dawkins R (1976) The selfish gene Oxford University Press

  • DeMichelis S, Dhillon A (2001) Learning in elections and voter turnout equilibria. Manuscript

  • Downs A, (1957) An economic theory of democracy. Harper and Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Eshel I, Samuelson L, Shaked A (1998) Altruists, egoists, and hooligans in a local interaction model. Am Econ Rev 88:157–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferejohn JA, Fiorina MP (1974) The paradox of not voting: a decision theoretic analysis. Am Polit Sci Rev 68:525–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman D (1991) Evolutionary games in economics. Econometrica 637–666

  • Fudenberg D, Levine DK (1998) The theory of learning in games. The MIT Press

  • Green DP, Shapiro I (1994) Pathologies of rational choice theory: a critique of applications in political science. Yale University Press

  • Harbaugh W (1996) If people vote because they like to, then why do so many of them lie? Public Choice 89:63–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirshleifer J (1977) Economics from a biological viewpoint. J Law Econ 20:1–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirshleifer J (1978) Natural economics versus political economy. J Soc Biolo Struct 20:1–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Kan K, Yang CC (2001) On expressive voting: evidence from the 1988 US Presidential Election. Public Choice, 108:295–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kandori M, Mailath G, Rob R (1993) Learnings, mutation, and long run equilibria in games. Econometrica 61:29–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lagunoff R (2000) On the evolution of pareto optimal behavior in repeated coordination problems. Int Econ Rev 41:273–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ledyard JO (1981) The paradox of voting and candidate competition: a general equilibrium analysis. In: Horwich G, Quirk J (eds) Essays in contemporary fields of economics. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette

    Google Scholar 

  • Ledyard JO (1984) The pure theory of large two-candidate elections. Public Choice 44:7–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller DC (1989) Public choice II: a revised edition of public choice. Cambridge University Press

  • Palfrey TR, Rosenthal H (1983) A strategic calculus of voting. Public Choice 41:7–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palfrey TR, Rosenthal H (1985) Voter participation and voter uncertainty. Am Polit Sci Rev 79:62–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Possajennikov A (2000) On the evolutionary stability of altruistic and spiteful preferences. J Econ Behav Organization 42:125–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter S (2001) Interdependent preferences and groups of agents. J Econo Theory 3:27–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riker WH, Ordeshook PC (1968) A theory of the calculus of voting. Am Polit Sci Rev 62:25–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robson A (1996) A biological basis for expected and non-expected utility theory. J Econ Theory 68:397–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robson A (2001) The biological basis for economic behavior. J Econ Literature 39:11–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith JM Price GR (1973) The logic of animal conflict. Nature 246:15–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor PD, Jonker LB, (1978) Evolutionary stable strategies and game dynamics. Math Biosci 145–156

  • Tullock G (1967) Towards a mathematics of Politics. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  • Weibull JW (1997) Evolutionary game theory. The MIT Press

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Myrna Wooders.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Conley, J.P., Toossi, A. & Wooders, M. Memetics and voting: how nature may make us public spirited. Int J Game Theory 35, 71–90 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00182-006-0045-2

Download citation

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00182-006-0045-2

Keywords

Navigation