In seeking to extend rational choice theory from
“market” to “political” behaviour, economists
have encountered a paradox: namely, that the act of voting itself
appears to be inconsistent with the assumption of rationality. This is
true not only when self‐interest is assumed, but also when altruistic
behaviour (at least in its non‐Kantian form) is allowed for. This
article surveys the theoretical and empirical literature on the
determinants of the decision to participate in voting, and concludes
that this decision is responsive to changes in the expected benefits and
costs of voting; even though the expected costs of voting must normally
outweigh the expected benefits. Interpretations of this behaviour
include the possibility that voters act rationally, but are misinformed
about the likely effectiveness of their votes; alternatively, the
electorate may include more Kantians than economists have generally been
willing to admit.