newsfilter.io
Tutorial

How much does a vote matter? | Rob Wiblin

80,000 HoursRob Wiblin
Watch on YouTube →
  • Re-writing a specific article "today" may involve minor edits, as the original text is expected to remain largely accurate.
  • Individuals who follow politics closely are predicted to learn significant insights from the content.
  • US subscribers interested in the topic may share the material with their personal networks.
  • Most elections are not as close as the 2000 US election, making it unlikely that a single vote would alter the outcome in those scenarios.
  • The probability of a single vote flipping a national election in a competitive US district is estimated to range between 1 in 1 million and 1 in 10 million.
  • The expected value of casting a vote is often far higher than alternative uses of the same amount of time.
  • The US federal government allocates $17.6 trillion every four years.
  • A 1 in 10 million chance of changing an outcome results in an average influence over $1.76 million, based on the 1 in 10 million scenario.
  • The impact of voting depends on the comparative benefit of one candidate over another for the global community.
  • Arguments against voting are considered valid only if the time required to research candidates accurately takes substantial effort that could be better allocated elsewhere.
  • Similar reasoning applied to US elections is expected to apply to elections in other countries.
  • In US presidential elections, the chance of one vote changing the outcome is estimated at approximately 1 in 5 million.
  • Political statisticians can determine how accurately polling predicts voting behavior.
  • Statistical models can estimate the frequency with which an entire election result hinges on a single vote.
  • In safe states like California, the odds of a vote changing the outcome are effectively zero.
  • Voters in very safe seats in the UK or Australia face similar odds to those in safe US states.
  • In a small US state polling 50-50 during a close election, the probability of one vote changing the outcome could reach 1 in 3 million.
  • In a wider range of tipping point states, the possibility is lower and closer to 1 in 10 million.
  • A national front-runner is expected to likely be ahead in the specific tipping point state as well.
  • As of October 14, 2020, Gelman's modeling identified only four states where the odds of one vote changing the outcome exceeded 1 in 10 million.
  • Even in elections not appearing close, the probability of one vote changing the outcome in a tipping point state rarely falls below half of what it would be in a very close election.
  • The power of a single vote to flip an outcome is two to three times more likely in Australia and the UK than in the US, assuming similar election tightness.
  • The impact of an extra vote remains constant as long as there is uncertainty regarding the exact vote margin.
  • Governments in most rich countries tax and spend between 25% and 55% of a country's GDP.
  • A 1 in 10 million chance of changing a swing state outcome is calculated to be worth $1.75 million.
  • In the US state-based system, 80% of individual voters cannot hope to change the outcome.
  • The remaining 20% of voters have approximately 5 times the leverage they would otherwise possess.
  • A vote with a 1 in 10 million chance of changing the outcome could shift $17,000 into foreign aid if the spending difference between candidates is 0.5% vs 0.3% of GDP.
  • R&D into new clean energy technologies is considered one of the most cost-effective ways to limit climate change.
  • Elected governments determine regulations on consumer products, workplace conditions, and environmental standards.
  • Elected movements can influence LGBTQ+ rights regarding public expression and marriage equality.
  • The social impact of different government approaches could be larger than the financial shifts resulting from a change in government.
  • A vote with a 1 in 10 million chance of changing the election outcome is valued at $25,000 per citizen due to its effect on the likelihood of nuclear war.
  • Nuclear war is expected to affect people overseas and untold future generations.
  • The PEPFAR program likely prevented several million deaths.
  • Election outcomes are expected to often have significant consequences.
  • In some electoral systems, parties tend to strategically cluster in the middle of the political spectrum quite strongly.
  • Elections with low turnout, few checks on executive power, and more than two viable candidates tend to exhibit larger differences between candidates.
  • In such high-difference elections, it is easier to identify which group is preferable.
  • If a voter is only 50% likely to vote correctly, the expected value of voting falls to zero.
  • Looking up basic background information provides a significant edge in determining which candidate produces better outcomes.
  • Voters aspiring to vote for the global ideal are more likely to succeed than those not attempting such a goal.
  • Collective laziness regarding voter education is expected to worsen political outcomes.
  • The risk of mistakenly voting for the wrong candidate does not dramatically reduce the value of voting, particularly when differences between options are stark.
  • Being 75% confident about which candidate is better is half as valuable as being 100% confident but is considered good enough.
  • A vote in a close district could have the same or greater impact in ways beyond direct influence on spending.
  • If a vote is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, the time required represents a significant opportunity to do good.
  • The true cost of voting is substantially reduced for those who already follow politics and form views regardless of altruistic motives.
  • For some, figuring out how to vote is an enjoyable or energizing activity in itself.
  • If deciding how to vote requires a week's work, the effective cost of voting increases by 10 to 100 fold.
  • For individuals in high-impact jobs solving pressing global problems, remaining focused on that work could be more beneficial than voting.
  • Depending on salary, working for a week and donating the earnings to an effective charity is easily more impactful than a week of research and voting.
  • Political participation is open to anyone not currently holding an especially impactful job.
  • If a person follows politics well enough to vote wisely and is in a close election, voting usually makes sense.
  • If a person would not follow politics except for social impact and has an opportunity for a high-impact job or earning to give, that is often the better use of time.
  • Personal appeals from friends and family have an impact 10 times greater than appeals from strangers.
  • Persuading one stranger to vote for a preferred candidate costs $30 to $100 or requires a few hours of volunteer work.
  • Researchers advise that cost-per-vote figures are likely underestimates for major topical elections.
  • All social science results are expected to look weaker over time as they face increased scrutiny.
  • Political campaigns in the US have more money available per voter than in the past.
  • Swing voters in swing states are already contacted repeatedly, reducing the impact of further prompts.
  • A 2020 paper suggests a cost per vote of $100 to $1,000 for TV ads in recent US presidential elections.
  • The Biden campaign had $3 per voter in the 2020 Democratic primaries through Super Tuesday, roughly a tenth of the general election cost.
  • A much larger fraction of voters are open to switching support in primary elections than in general elections.
  • Parties in the UK and Australia have closer to $10 per voter in marginal seats.
  • In circumstances with $10 per voter in marginal seats, the $30 to $100 experimental figure could be an overestimate.
  • The question of whether political campaigns are the best use of charitable giving hinges on campaign funding levels and the magnitude of difference between candidates.
  • Encouraging a vote for under $100 can be competitive with other giving options if the social value of an extra vote exceeds $10,000.
  • There is a plan to investigate these details in more depth in four years, coinciding with the next American presidential election.
  • If voting oneself is worthwhile, it is almost certainly worth contacting friends and family to encourage them to do the same.
  • One experiment suggested that being contacted by someone known increased the probability of turning out to vote by 10 percentage points.
  • In reality, the effect of personal appeals is not as large as that specific experimental figure.
  • There is good evidence that people are quite likely to be influenced by appeals from people they know.
  • In a competitive seat situation, the hour spent voting is likely the most impactful one of the entire year.
  • A vote can on average secure influence over hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.
  • The speaker states they vote whenever they get the chance.
  • The input of informed friends is expected to increase the odds of the better candidate winning.
  • Spending hundreds of hours tracking politics between elections is not impactful if not acted upon.
  • Joining or donating to a political campaign may represent a high-impact way to improve the world when one is confident one candidate is much better.
  • A personal appeal from a friend might increase someone's likelihood of voting by as much as 10 percentage points.
  • The speaker expects to return with an interview before too long.