Related to: Shut up and multiply, Politics is the mind-killer, Pascal's Mugging, The two party swindle, The American system and misleading labels, Policy Tug-of-War 

Jane is a connoisseur of imported cheeses and Homo Economicus in good standing, using a causal decision theory that two-boxes on Newcomb's problem. Unfortunately for her, the politically well-organized dairy farmers in her country have managed to get an initiative for increased dairy tariffs on the ballot, which will cost her $20,000. Should she take an hour to vote against the initiative on election day? 

She estimates that she has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of casting the deciding vote, for an expected value of $0.02 from improved policy. However, while Jane may be willing to give her two cents on the subject, the opportunity cost of her time far exceeds the policy benefit, and so it seems she has no reason to vote.

Jane's dilemma is just the standard Paradox of Voting in political science and public choice theory. Voters may still engage in expressive voting to affiliate with certain groups or to signal traits insofar as politics is not about policy, but the instrumental rationality of voting to bring about selfishly preferred policy outcomes starts to look dubious. Thus many of those who say that we rationally ought to vote in hopes of affecting policy focus on altruistic preferences: faced with a tiny probability of casting a decisive vote, but large impacts on enormous numbers of people in the event that we are decisive, we should shut up and multiply, voting if the expected value of benefit to others sufficiently exceeds the cost to ourselves.

Meanwhile, at the Experimental Philosophy blog, Eric Schwitzgebel reports that philosophers overwhelmingly rate voting as very morally good (on a scale of 1 to 9), with voting placing right around donating 10% of one's income to charity. He offers the following explanation:

Amnon Eden has sent out this call for papers on technological singularity, which many Less Wrongers may be interested in. I presented at last year's conference, which was a good experience with many interesting people. Submitting good papers can help to legitimate and cultivate the field and thus reduce existential risk (although of course poor work could have the reverse effect). If you have an idea or a draft that you're not sure about, and would like to discuss it before submitting, I'd be happy to help if you contact me (carl DOT shulman AT gmail).

I am also told that the Singularity Institute may be able to provide travel funding for selected papers. Email annasalamon@intelligence.org for more information. 

There will be a Less Wrong meet-up this Sunday, October 11th, 2 pm, in Cambridge at the Central Square Starbucks Coffee at 655 Massachusetts Avenue (time and place are flexible if anyone has a conflict); please comment if you'd like to attend, or if you have any questions or ideas. Some confirmed attendees include SIAI folk and Less Wrongers Anna Salamon, Steve Rayhawk, Carl Shulman, and Roko Mijc. Also keep your eyes peeled for a probable appearance of expert reductionist Gary Drescher, and a rumored Scott Aaronson sighting.

Feel free to contact me at my first name DOT my last name AT post.harvard.edu or 646-525-5383.
Thanks, and see everyone there!

Posted on behalf of Thomas McCabe:

I (Thomas McCabe, a Yale math student) will be hosting a Less Wrong meetup in New Haven, Connecticut, on the Yale University campus. The meetup will take place at 5 PM on Monday, October 12th, at the Yorkside Pizza & Restaurant at 288 York St. (time and place are flexible if anyone has a conflict); please comment if you'd like to attend, or if you have any questions or ideas. The location can be found on Google Maps at this link.

Some confirmed attendees include SIAI folk and Less Wrongers Anna Salamon, Steve Rayhawk, Carl Shulman, and Roko Mijc.

Feel free to contact me at thomas.mccabe@yale.edu, or at 518-248-5525.
Thanks, and see everyone there!