--- Eric Crampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But even if his expression reflects his stated value, he is still > > deriving > > utility from the good. Why does it matter the reason for the utility? > > Because of the divergence of private and social costs inherent in the > voting act.
There will be individual costs that excede benefits, and benefits that excede costs, but I don't see why the total social cost would differ from the total private costs. The only voters that impose an externality are those who change the outcome, and they do compensate society. > So, massive social waste can be approved by > majority vote because of the relatively small expressive benefits attached > to voting for the inefficient program. Why is this regarded as a social waste, if it provides utility to the voters, even if that utility is from the expression? The total value stated by the voters excedes the total cost; where is the waste? > the argument regarding expressive voting is that that utility is > lower than the utility that could have been derived from alternate > use of the funds that were used to construct the statue. If someone states a value of $100 for a public good, why would the utility be less than than $100 spent for a private good? > Let's > say that each person gets $5 worth of expressive utility from voting for > statue construction. The average cost to each voter if the statue is > constructed is $50. And, each voter gets $3 worth of direct utility from > looking at the constructed statue. Then the total utility per voter is $8, while the cost is $50, and the statue is not obtained. With demand revelation, the statue is only bought if the total stated value is greater than the total cost. > Since no voter is decisive, each voter > votes for the statue constructionm in order to get the $5 in expressive > benefits. He does not "vote for" the statue. With demand revelation, he only states the maximum he would be willing to pay. In this case it is $8. What makes demand revelation superior than ordinary voting is that one states a value for the good rather than voting yes or no. Fred Foldvary ===== [EMAIL PROTECTED]
