Re: lotteries and elections
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Fred Foldvary wrote: > > Of course one has a right to complain, but what is meant is that by not > > casting a ballot, one has voted to let the others decide, so if you > > later complain, you contradict yourself. > > ... You're offering a fixed coin here. Heads I don't vote and I > can't complain because I wasn't part of the process; tails I vote and I > can't complain because I accepted the democrated process. > Eric Crampton No. The system forces us to vote; not casting a ballot is voting to let the others decide. Casting a ballot not in favor of the establishment parties implies one does not approve of the established process and parties. > others decide regardless of > whether/how you vote. The issue is your decision, not what others do. > By refusing to vote, you deny them that legitimacy. Refusing to vote puts one in the same set as those who are apathetic, and the latter are the majority of non-voters. The clear signal of disapproval is to cast a ballot in opposition to the establishment. Fred Foldvary
Re: lotteries and elections
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Fred Foldvary wrote: > Of course one has a right to complain, but what is meant is that by not > casting a ballot, one has voted to let the others decide, so if you later > complain, you contradict yourself. Oh come on. You're offering a fixed coin here. Heads I don't vote and I can't complain because I wasn't part of the process; tails I vote and I can't complain because I accepted the democrated process. Either way, I lose and the government wins. Odds of decisiveness are nil; consequently, others decide regardless of whether/how you vote. By voting you are legitimating the decision made by others. By refusing to vote, you deny them that legitimacy. Only in voting and complaining does one contradict oneself. Eric Crampton
Re: lotteries and elections
--- Aschwin de Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It may be more accurate to say that at the moment of casting a ballot the > rest of the country has sovereignty over me... No, because at that moment, I express my will as to who shall govern. Nobody is forcing me to choose whom to vote for. Every other voter is sovereign also. It is only after casting the ballots that I find that the majority have voted to deny my sovereignty until the next election. > "if a > citizen doesn't vote he has no right to bitch about illegal wars or tax > n'spend." Of course one has a right to complain, but what is meant is that by not casting a ballot, one has voted to let the others decide, so if you later complain, you contradict yourself. Fred Foldvary
Re: lotteries and elections
In other words, what you're suggesting is that for some, lotteries and voting are like candy, pornography, birth control, or narcotics, i.e., a legitimate way (in some cultures) for a person to deliberately subvert his own genetic programming and obtain pleasure that he doesn't "deserve". Ok, I can buy that, but I still think there must be a large fraction of lottery players and voters who don't know, even intellectually, that their chances of winning or changing the election outcome are tiny. But it doesn't look like enough data exist to settle the matter either way. On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 10:07:00PM -0400, Robert A. Book wrote: > Whenever I ask seemingly intelligent lottery players why they play, > the answer is usually something along the lines of "I know they > chances of winning are tiny, but for a dollar I get to dream of > winning for a whole week." In other words, they (may) know the > probability is extremely small, but that extremely small probability > has a utility value beyond value the chance of dollars that goes with > it. This is analogous to the entertainment value of playing Las Vegas > style gambling games like cards, roulette, and slot machines. > > Something similar may apply to voting -- everyone knows the chances of > an election being decided by a single vote are miniscule, but they get > some satisfaction from participating in the process, and maybe even > from knowing that they made the total for their candidate in their > county printed in the newspaper the next day from "138,298" to > "138,299." > > --Robert Book
Re: lotteries and elections
> At the moment of casting a ballot, I feel like a sovereign human being. > That is my only opportunity to be a sovereign rather than a subject of the > state. That's worth the small time cost of casting the ballot. It may be more accurate to say that at the moment of casting a ballot the rest of the country has sovereignty over me... One economist today on what *non*-voting doesn't express: "I will begin by tackling what I think is the weakest objection to not voting that I received. (...)While it was advanced by several of my correspondents, one in particular phrased it quite succinctly, saying, "if a citizen doesn't vote he has no right to bitch about illegal wars or tax n' spend." However, I think that contention is precisely backwards. To see why, imagine a stranger approaching you, a gun in his hand, and declaring that you have the "right" to play Russian roulette with him. If you don't exercise your right, he says, he still plans to aim his gun at you, spin the cylinder, and then pull the trigger. If you agree to take part in his proposed game, it seems to me, then you have weakened the force of any protest you might lodge about the outcome. On the other hand, if you tell him you want no part of such foolishness, and that he should leave you alone, then how in the world would that negate your right to object to his plan? Isn't our "right" to vote closely analogous to that situation? Although I'm offered the chance to take my own turn spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger of the gun, I'm not permitted to opt out of my role as a potential target. If I attempt to ignore the outcome of an election, based on the simple fact that I never agreed to abide by it in the first place, the State is prepared to use deadly force against me, in order to compel me to pay attention. Why should my refusal to participate in the State's aggressive schemes mean that I could no longer criticize them?" http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan136.html
Re: lotteries and elections
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > What other > reasons might people vote besides believing they can influence the > outcome? At the moment of casting a ballot, I feel like a sovereign human being. That is my only opportunity to be a sovereign rather than a subject of the state. That's worth the small time cost of casting the ballot. Fred Foldvary
Re: lotteries and elections
> Quoth Weidai: > > > "Why have economists latched onto the idea of "expressive voting", when a > > much simpler explanation is that most apparently irrational voting really is > > irrational? Of course "expressive voting" preserves the assumption of rationality, > > but there is still the problem of participation in lotteries with negative > > expected payoffs." > > Participation in lotteries with negative expected payoffs is not a "problem" > if participants are risk-seeking. If I get 0 utils from having $0, 5 utils > from having $5, and 15 utils from having $10, I'll be eager to wager my $5 on > the toss of a coin even though the expected dollar payoff is zero. This is > simply because the expected util payoff is positive. Similarly, although in most > lotteries the expected dollar payoff is negative, the expected util payoff to > participants may be positive. I expect some variant of the above could > explain "apparently irrational voting." Whenever I ask seemingly intelligent lottery players why they play, the answer is usually something along the lines of "I know they chances of winning are tiny, but for a dollar I get to dream of winning for a whole week." In other words, they (may) know the probability is extremely small, but that extremely small probability has a utility value beyond value the chance of dollars that goes with it. This is analogous to the entertainment value of playing Las Vegas style gambling games like cards, roulette, and slot machines. Something similar may apply to voting -- everyone knows the chances of an election being decided by a single vote are miniscule, but they get some satisfaction from participating in the process, and maybe even from knowing that they made the total for their candidate in their county printed in the newspaper the next day from "138,298" to "138,299." --Robert Book
Re: lotteries and elections
Ugh. "Utils" and now "problem of voter apathy"? I don't like the way this thread is heading... Gil Guillory, P.E. Principal Engineer KBR Tower, KT-3131B email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ph. 713-753-8797 fax 713-753-6266 > -Original Message- > From: ArmChair List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hamish > Barney > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 11:56 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: lotteries and elections > > In Australia voting is actually compulsory. Failure to vote in an > election can result in a fine. Voting then becomes very rational. I > think in many ways this is a good way of getting around the problem of > voter apathy and the otherwise apparent irrationality of voting. > > Hamish > > Michael Giesbrecht wrote: > > >>From: ArmChair List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > > > Wei > > > >>Dai > > > > [snip] > > > >>Why have economists latched onto the idea of "expressive voting", when > > > > a > > > >>much simpler explanation is that most apparently irrational voting > > > > really > > > >>is irrational? Of course "expressive voting" preserves the assumption > > > > of > > > >>rationality, but there is still the problem of participation in > > > > lotteries > > > >>with negative expected payoffs. Is that just to be ignored, or will > >>someone come up with a theory of "expressive lottery ticket purchase"? > > > > > > By far, the most common response I get when I mention that one's > > individual vote does not effect the outcome of an election, is > > astonished indignation. I am assured that regardless of the (lack of) > > effect of my individual vote, voting is an obligation born out of the > > principle of reciprocity. We, as individuals, should vote, because if > > everybody didn't vote there would be no electoral process. Voting is > > thus one of many necessary things we should do in order to be a > > respectable member of the community. > > > > By the way, do not attempt to discuss this subject at a cocktail party > > with drunken public elementary school teachers. Before you know it, > > you'll be personally responsible for, not only decline of western > > civilization, but all various and sundry despotic regimes throughout the > > world. It will end with you promising to vote Green in the next, and all > > future elections, just to stop the crying. > > > > Cheers, > > Michael Giesbrecht
Re: lotteries and elections
In Australia voting is actually compulsory. Failure to vote in an election can result in a fine. Voting then becomes very rational. I think in many ways this is a good way of getting around the problem of voter apathy and the otherwise apparent irrationality of voting. Hamish Michael Giesbrecht wrote: From: ArmChair List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wei Dai [snip] Why have economists latched onto the idea of "expressive voting", when a much simpler explanation is that most apparently irrational voting really is irrational? Of course "expressive voting" preserves the assumption of rationality, but there is still the problem of participation in lotteries with negative expected payoffs. Is that just to be ignored, or will someone come up with a theory of "expressive lottery ticket purchase"? By far, the most common response I get when I mention that one's individual vote does not effect the outcome of an election, is astonished indignation. I am assured that regardless of the (lack of) effect of my individual vote, voting is an obligation born out of the principle of reciprocity. We, as individuals, should vote, because if everybody didn't vote there would be no electoral process. Voting is thus one of many necessary things we should do in order to be a respectable member of the community. By the way, do not attempt to discuss this subject at a cocktail party with drunken public elementary school teachers. Before you know it, you'll be personally responsible for, not only decline of western civilization, but all various and sundry despotic regimes throughout the world. It will end with you promising to vote Green in the next, and all future elections, just to stop the crying. Cheers, Michael Giesbrecht
Re: lotteries and elections
Quoth Weidai: "Why have economists latched onto the idea of "expressive voting", when a much simpler explanation is that most apparently irrational voting really is irrational? Of course "expressive voting" preserves the assumption of rationality, but there is still the problem of participation in lotteries with negative expected payoffs." Participation in lotteries with negative expected payoffs is not a "problem" if participants are risk-seeking. If I get 0 utils from having $0, 5 utils from having $5, and 15 utils from having $10, I'll be eager to wager my $5 on the toss of a coin even though the expected dollar payoff is zero. This is simply because the expected util payoff is positive. Similarly, although in most lotteries the expected dollar payoff is negative, the expected util payoff to participants may be positive. I expect some variant of the above could explain "apparently irrational voting." --Brian
Re: lotteries and elections
I don't really see how coercing people to vote will render voting any more rational. More importantly, do we really want people who don't care enough about politics to cast their votes? How will this improve anything? They will just show up and vote for the fellow with the glitziest advertisement, or the fellow who gives away the longest foot-long hot dogs, and there is nothing necessarily good or optimal about that. The fine is a blunt instrument which alters only their voting behavior, and does nothing to get them to ponder the issues. Any political participation gains are superficial. It leaves the marginal voter worse off by imposing a cost, and it probably makes us worse off to boot. This kind of policy is like killing flies with a sledge hammer. You can do it, but why on earth would you do it? Democracy's best safeguard is voter apathy, not enlightened paternalism. This is why Rock The Vote is a horrible campaign, unless of course the sort of voter that it drags in is likely to vote for your candidate. DVM
Re: lotteries and elections
> From: ArmChair List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wei > Dai [snip] > > Why have economists latched onto the idea of "expressive voting", when a > much simpler explanation is that most apparently irrational voting really > is irrational? Of course "expressive voting" preserves the assumption of > rationality, but there is still the problem of participation in lotteries > with negative expected payoffs. Is that just to be ignored, or will > someone come up with a theory of "expressive lottery ticket purchase"? By far, the most common response I get when I mention that one's individual vote does not effect the outcome of an election, is astonished indignation. I am assured that regardless of the (lack of) effect of my individual vote, voting is an obligation born out of the principle of reciprocity. We, as individuals, should vote, because if everybody didn't vote there would be no electoral process. Voting is thus one of many necessary things we should do in order to be a respectable member of the community. By the way, do not attempt to discuss this subject at a cocktail party with drunken public elementary school teachers. Before you know it, you'll be personally responsible for, not only decline of western civilization, but all various and sundry despotic regimes throughout the world. It will end with you promising to vote Green in the next, and all future elections, just to stop the crying. Cheers, Michael Giesbrecht
Re: lotteries and elections
Dear Michael, I laughed out loud at your concluding sentence. Well said! I've had almost the identical response from one of my undergraduate students, except, being only 18 or thereabout, she exercised the adolescent eye-roll instead. David In a message dated 9/1/04 12:30:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >By far, the most common response I get when I mention that one's >individual vote does not effect the outcome of an election, is >astonished indignation. I am assured that regardless of the (lack of) >effect of my individual vote, voting is an obligation born out of the >principle of reciprocity. We, as individuals, should vote, because if >everybody didn't vote there would be no electoral process. Voting is >thus one of many necessary things we should do in order to be a >respectable member of the community. > >By the way, do not attempt to discuss this subject at a cocktail party >with drunken public elementary school teachers. Before you know it, >you'll be personally responsible for, not only decline of western >civilization, but all various and sundry despotic regimes throughout the >world. It will end with you promising to vote Green in the next, and all >future elections, just to stop the crying. > >Cheers, >Michael Giesbrecht
Re: lotteries and elections
Well I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd never ever heard the term "expressive voting" before yesterday when someone used it on the list, and I'm not exactly sure how people define it. I do know that when I lived in Iowa I encountered a great many voters who supported candidates like Alan Keyes in the Republican primaries, knowing full well that he couldn't win, and yet expressing the desire to "send a message" by voting for him. Would that be an example of expressive voting? David In a message dated 9/1/04 10:00:45 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 07:50:08PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I've been discussing with my undergradute students the rationality of >voting. > >What about the possibility that many people do not deal well with with >small probabilities, and mistakenly think that their votes matter? > >Why have economists latched onto the idea of "expressive voting", when >a >much simpler explanation is that most apparently irrational voting really >is irrational? Of course "expressive voting" preserves the assumption of >rationality, but there is still the problem of participation in lotteries >with negative expected payoffs. Is that just to be ignored, or will >someone come up with a theory of "expressive lottery ticket purchase"?
Re: lotteries and elections
Wei Dai wrote: On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 08:25:16PM -0500, Jeffrey Rous wrote: When people ask me why I vote, my standard answer is "because I can." Voting simply reminds me that we have something special going here in the free world. I do a decent job of learning about the candidates and issues not because I think my single vote matters, but because, overall, voting does matter and I get a kick out of being part of the process. Maybe you know that your vote doesn't matter and still vote anyway, but I bet there is a high positive correlation among the general population between the belief that one's vote matters, and willingness to vote. Using ourselves for anecdotes in this case is a bad idea. We as a self-selected group of armchair economists already know that the probability that one's vote will make a difference in the outcome is tiny, so of course anybody who still votes will be voting for other reasons. It seems to be taken as a given that the cost/benifit analysis of voting seems to be placed firmly on the side of not-voting. Does anybody have any data to back that up? It seems to me that even though the chance that your vote would matter is rather small, the effect it can have if it does matter is very, very large. An interesting thing I've heard about from the Australian elections is that the entire fate of the country depends on as little as 20,000 people. Most electorates are "safe" and your vote doesn't matter either way, in swing states, most voters are already decided so those 20,000 people have a huge effect on the election outcomes. Xianhang Zhang
Re: lotteries and elections
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 07:50:08PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I've been discussing with my undergradute students the rationality of voting. What about the possibility that many people do not deal well with with small probabilities, and mistakenly think that their votes matter? Why have economists latched onto the idea of "expressive voting", when a much simpler explanation is that most apparently irrational voting really is irrational? Of course "expressive voting" preserves the assumption of rationality, but there is still the problem of participation in lotteries with negative expected payoffs. Is that just to be ignored, or will someone come up with a theory of "expressive lottery ticket purchase"?
Re: lotteries and elections
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 08:25:16PM -0500, Jeffrey Rous wrote: > When people ask me why I vote, my standard answer is "because I can." Voting simply > reminds me that we have something special going here in the free world. I do a > decent job of learning about the candidates and issues not because I think my single > vote matters, but because, overall, voting does matter and I get a kick out of being > part of the process. Maybe you know that your vote doesn't matter and still vote anyway, but I bet there is a high positive correlation among the general population between the belief that one's vote matters, and willingness to vote. Using ourselves for anecdotes in this case is a bad idea. We as a self-selected group of armchair economists already know that the probability that one's vote will make a difference in the outcome is tiny, so of course anybody who still votes will be voting for other reasons.
Re: lotteries and elections
When people ask me why I vote, my standard answer is "because I can." Voting simply reminds me that we have something special going here in the free world. I do a decent job of learning about the candidates and issues not because I think my single vote matters, but because, overall, voting does matter and I get a kick out of being part of the process. But, I wonder, how many people go to vote on a Tuesday because they find it more pleasurable than work? Would there be a higher or lower turnout on a Saturday when folks have to give up something more pleasurable? -Jeff >>> Aschwin de Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/31/04 07:36PM >>> > I've been discussing with my undergradute students the rationality of voting. > People might get other benefits from voting besides thinking that their one > vote can influence the outcome. Some people feel a civic pride in voting. > Others vote to prevent others from telling them they don't have a "right to > complain," a comment complaint lobbed at people who don't vote. A problem with many of these reasons is that they do partly rely on the illusion that their vote does matter! "Expressive voting" is not a completely separate issue. Why feel pride in participating in an irrational system? Why not express your political views in a more efficient way than voting? etc. -aschwin
Re: lotteries and elections
In a message dated 8/31/04 8:36:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >A problem with many of these reasons is that they do partly rely on the > >illusion that their vote does matter! "Expressive voting" is not a > >completely separate issue. Why feel pride in participating in an irrational > >system? Why not express your political views in a more efficient way than > >voting? etc. It's irrational only if the cost exceeds the benefit. If someone gains a benefit from voting that exceeds their opportunity cost, then it's not irrational for them to vote. As far as other means, they mostly have much higher opportunity costs and might not actually have much more likelihood of affecting the outcome.
Re: lotteries and elections
> I've been discussing with my undergradute students the rationality of voting. > People might get other benefits from voting besides thinking that their one > vote can influence the outcome. Some people feel a civic pride in voting. > Others vote to prevent others from telling them they don't have a "right to > complain," a comment complaint lobbed at people who don't vote. A problem with many of these reasons is that they do partly rely on the illusion that their vote does matter! "Expressive voting" is not a completely separate issue. Why feel pride in participating in an irrational system? Why not express your political views in a more efficient way than voting? etc. -aschwin
Re: lotteries and elections
I've been discussing with my undergradute students the rationality of voting. People might get other benefits from voting besides thinking that their one vote can influence the outcome. Some people feel a civic pride in voting. Others vote to prevent others from telling them they don't have a "right to complain," a comment complaint lobbed at people who don't vote. I like the excitement of going to the polls and seeing everyone else all keyed up about the election. Some people pick a candidate and then cheer for him or her, and then feel good about that candidate winning the election the way they would a race horse or a sports team. For some people voting might serve as a social outlet--something to do around other people instead of just staying home. What other reasons might people vote besides believing they can influence the outcome? David Levenstam In a message dated 8/31/04 12:31:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Does anyone know if there is a correlation between a person's >willingness to buy lottery tickets, and his willingness to vote in large >elections (where the chances of any vote being pivotal is tiny)? > >A simple explanation for both of these phenomena, where people choose >to do things with apparently negative expected payoff, is misunderstanding >or miscalculation of probabilities. This theory would predict a positive >correlation. I'm curious if anyone has done a survey or experiment to test >this.
Re: lotteries and elections
Dimitriy V. Masterov writes: > If my memory serves me, when no one has a winning ticket, the pot gets > rolled over to the next round. When you have several large states that run > a joint lottery, the sum can get really enormous when this happens, so > that the expected gain is positive even with a minuscule probability of > winning. Right. > Economic intuition will predict that when this happens, lots of > people will rush to buy tickets, Right. > so that the the probability of winning > will fall, eliminating any gains. However, this does not always seem to be > the case in real life. Not quite right, but sort of. With these games, the player picks numbers, the lottery picks numbers, and the player wins if his/her numbers match the lotteries. The probability of a given ticket winning does NOT depend on the number of tickets purchased -- after all, how else could you have a round when "no one has a winning ticket"? The size of the pot in the NEXT round (if no one wins) might depend on the number of tickets sold in this round, depending on the lottery rules, but that doesn't affect the expected gain on THIS round. The only thing that does impact the expected gain on this round is the fact that more people buying tickets means there's a greater chance someone else picks the wining numbers also. Since the pot is split among all players who pick the winning numbers, this affects the expected gain, but not the probability of a win. --Robert
Re: lotteries and elections
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Dimitriy V. Masterov wrote: > > > I don't have an answer for you, but it seems important to point out that > > not all lotteries have a negative expected payoff. Large, multi-state > > jackpots are often a "fair" bet, even after taxes. M. Christopher Auld: > How does that come about? In some lotteries, you pick numbers (say five or six numbers between 1 and 43), they draw "winning" numbers, and if your all numbers match all their numbers, you win some huge "jackpot." (Some lotteries have smaller prized for partial matches, I think some require numbers to be picked in order and some don't, but you get the idea.) They draw numbers on a schedule -- say, once or twice a week -- and only tickets bought since the last drawing can match the current drawing. Sometimes, no one picked the "winning" numbers, so (a portion of) the jackpot "rolls over," increasing the prize money for the next drawing. The thing is, you get to observe the jackpot amount before buying a ticket. So it is possible for a ticket to have a positive expected value on occasion, even if as a whole the lottery has a guaranteed profit. --Robert Book [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lotteries and elections
If my memory serves me, when no one has a winning ticket, the pot gets rolled over to the next round. When you have several large states that run a joint lottery, the sum can get really enormous when this happens, so that the expected gain is positive even with a minuscule probability of winning. Economic intuition will predict that when this happens, lots of people will rush to buy tickets, so that the the probability of winning will fall, eliminating any gains. However, this does not always seem to be the case in real life. DVM On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Christopher Auld wrote: > On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Dimitriy V. Masterov wrote: > > > I don't have an answer for you, but it seems important to point out that > > not all lotteries have a negative expected payoff. Large, multi-state > > jackpots are often a "fair" bet, even after taxes. > > How does that come about? > > > Cheers, > > M. Christopher Auld[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Assistant Professorhttp://jerry.ss.ucalgary.ca > Department of Economicsvoice: 1.403.220.4098 > University of Calgary FAX: 1.403.282.5262 > ___ Dimitriy V. Masterov Work: Center for Social Program Evaluation 1155 East 60th St. Room 038 Chicago, IL 60637 Work: (773)256-6005 Fax: (773)256-6313 Home: 1312 East 53rd St., Apt.309 Chicago, IL 60615 Mobile: (773)220-2760
Re: lotteries and elections
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004, Dimitriy V. Masterov wrote: > I don't have an answer for you, but it seems important to point out that > not all lotteries have a negative expected payoff. Large, multi-state > jackpots are often a "fair" bet, even after taxes. How does that come about? Cheers, M. Christopher Auld[EMAIL PROTECTED] Assistant Professorhttp://jerry.ss.ucalgary.ca Department of Economicsvoice: 1.403.220.4098 University of Calgary FAX: 1.403.282.5262
Re: lotteries and elections
I don't have an answer for you, but it seems important to point out that not all lotteries have a negative expected payoff. Large, multi-state jackpots are often a "fair" bet, even after taxes. The best economic analyses I've seen are Charles T. Clotfelter and Philip J. Cook, Selling Hope: State Lotteries In America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), and Clotfelter, Charles T., and Philip J. Cook. 1990. "On the Economics of State Lotteries." The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(4): 105-119. These are mostly concerned with the taxation aspect, but you might find something useful there. Dimitriy V. Masterov
lotteries and elections
Does anyone know if there is a correlation between a person's willingness to buy lottery tickets, and his willingness to vote in large elections (where the chances of any vote being pivotal is tiny)? A simple explanation for both of these phenomena, where people choose to do things with apparently negative expected payoff, is misunderstanding or miscalculation of probabilities. This theory would predict a positive correlation. I'm curious if anyone has done a survey or experiment to test this.
