Not everything should be looked at from a dumb economist's point of view.
Unless you view the candidates as equal, or have perfect information about the number and direction of all other votes in your electorate, you vote to increase the probability of an outcome you prefer. Votes are only unnecessary after the fact.
The freakonomics guys are proud of their non-technical background but I find this lack of understanding of a game theory in such an important topic absolutely unforgivably stupid.
> "The freakonomics guys are proud of their non-technical background but I find this lack of understanding of a game theory in such an important topic absolutely unforgivably stupid."
The ad hominem attack is unnecessary here. While Dubner is not an economist, Steven Levitt (the other Freakonomics author) is not only an economics PhD, but also a winner of the John Bates Clark medal. In short, he's one of the best economists out there.
It isn't an ad hominem. It may be an insult attached to an argument, but it isn't an argument by attacking a person. In the freakonomics book and the blog they do like to play the bumbling economist who doesn't understand all that maths role.
Unless you view the candidates as equal, or have perfect information about the number and direction of all other votes in your electorate, you vote to increase the probability of an outcome you prefer. Votes are only unnecessary after the fact.
The freakonomics guys are proud of their non-technical background but I find this lack of understanding of a game theory in such an important topic absolutely unforgivably stupid.