In a November 6, 2005 column, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, the authors of Freakonomics, wondered, “Why Vote?”  On their blog Tuesday, Levitt reminded us again that, as an economist, he sees little or no value in voting in the upcoming Presidential election.

The “evidence” that voting doesn’t matter consists of a study of Congressional and state legislative elections, showing that the odds of a single vote affecting an election are extremely rare.  (Although, the analysis turned up no less than nine state legislative elections out of 40,000 that ended either tied or decided by a single vote.)

The problem is that this entire analysis fails to consider the fact that many additional local elections and referenda share the ballots with state and national races.  And, numerous local elections are decided by one or two votes or even by coin flips in cases of ties.

I know this can happen, because it (almost) happened to me.  In 2001, I won a City Council election by two votes.  Any individual voter who had decided to vote for my opponent instead of me would have caused a tie, and I believe the election would then have been decided by a simple coin toss.  During my first four-year term on the Council, I was constantly reminded by constituents that their vote (or the combined votes of a husband and wife) had gotten me elected.  Whenever a voter had a gripe, I had to listen.

If you don’t believe that coin flips decide elections, then think again.  Just a few years later, a County Board primary here was, indeed, decided by a coin flip.  A simple Google search returns numerous stories about elections being decided this way.  At least two recent elections in Michigan (this one and this one) have been decided by tosses of coins.

The hitch in Michigan is that the winner of the coin toss doesn’t necessarily win the election.  He or she only wins the opportunity to choose first from a box containing two slips of paper, one that says, “elected,” and another saying, “not elected.”

None of this discussion addresses the argument by many astute political observers that local elections are more important than state and federal elections.  Local laws and policies most directly affect citizens.  Think about your taxes.  A huge chunk of what you pay is determined at the local level.  Specifically, property tax and sales tax rates are often determined by local politicians or in local referenda.

Levitt and Dubner have a point in the sense that the converse of their argument is very telling and important.  The smaller the number of votes cast in an election, the seemingly greater the odds that it will end in a tie.  So get out and vote.  The quality and the curriculum of your schools, the zoning of your property and the one across the street, how many police patrol your streets, and where or whether you can smoke in public are all at stake.

The recent flooding in Iowa and in my state of Illinois has been tragic.  But, I am getting sick of hearing people (and media like CNN) blame the government for the floods and the fact that most homeowners didn’t have flood insurance.  This was supposedly a five hundred year event.  It was an “act of God.”

If we required building standards and insurance that covered every event that might only happen twice per millennium, then we would have to spend a fortune on construction costs, public works projects, and insurance.  The same people who are blaming the government now would criticize the government for these onerous and expensive requirements if they were to be enacted.

Now, I don’t know whether this was really a five hundred year event or not.  Maybe it wasn’t, or it won’t be in the future.  But, I do know that if you live near a river or next to a levy, then you should anticipate that flooding is within the realm of possibility.

And, it is completely false to say that the government told these property-owners that they didn’t need flood insurance.  Just because the government didn’t require it, does not mean that flood insurance was not available or that these people were precluded from getting it.  In fact, just the opposite was true.

YOU ARE NOT SAVING ANY GAS BY DRIVING SO SLOWLY!  When you drive around in first or second gear, your car actually uses MORE gas.  Your car is most efficient in the highest gear.  Here is an article from Car Talk where they provide legitimate ideas for saving gas and wherein they specifically advise you NOT to drive so slowly.

There are two more reasons not to drive this way.  First, it is unsafe.  When you drive that slowly, you force people into the lane of oncoming traffic to pass you.  Some drivers might also assume that you are stopping or turning and make bad decisions.  Secondly, it is extremely annoying; you are not making any friends in the neighborhood this way.

By the way, the Car Talk article has some great ideas.  I, myself, have saved a lot of gas recently by simply driving five miles per hour more slowly on the highway.  This move has been measurably successful in reducing my gas mileage and consumption.

One more thing, you should NOT open your windows when you’re driving on the highway.  This doesn’t save gas either, because the wind resistance overcomes the effect that your air conditioning has on fuel consumption.  If you have air conditioning, then use it on the highway instead of opening windows.

Happy driving...