It’s a recognized conundrum in what’s called “social decision theory”: believe it or not, in a series of straight up or down votes (as with referenda), the majority can be in the minority in a majority of cases. Check out Anscombe’s Paradox.

Here’s another conundrum. In a state-wide or national election my single vote or, gentle reader, your single vote never (or almost never) decides anything. And the more people that vote, the likelihood of a single vote’s being decisive becomes even less. Some folks, as we know, vote only to cancel a spouse’s vote. Well, it’s not necessary, is it? Shouldn’t they buy a lottery ticket instead? At least in that case some one person’s ticket might well be a winner.

But why am I, twice a gubernatorial candidate in California, pointing out the paltry prospects of a single vote, including my own? For two reasons. First, to remind voters of what they must have already figured out for themselves. Second, to make the case that every man Jack and every woman Jill, if politically informed, should vote anyway. (Note: unlike some, I do not advocate voting early and often.)

My case for voting is rather like a three-legged and thereby stable stool. The first leg is that my vote helps me clarify just why it is that I think this rather than that candidate should win my support. The second leg is that my voting is a public declaration that I’ve done the thinking that I should. And it’s the same for every informed and engaged voter.

Now comes the third and most important leg. In getting ready to vote and in casting my ballot as I do, I have a civic mandate to explain to other people, friends and foes, neighbors and strangers, just why I support the candidate (or the proposition) that I do. I can work through the arguments, both sound and unsound, that matter for the vote in question. I can introduce, as well, candidates that others might not be familiar with (often because the big party duopoly doesn’t like competition). Again, it’s also a mandate for every other informed and engaged voter.

But suppose a voter isn’t informed and engaged? Suppose a voter hasn’t worked through the relevant arguments for the vote in question? Suppose the voter isn’t altogether clear on just who the candidates are? Truth be told, there are lots of voters like that. Sometimes they’ve been “had” by slick political machines. Sometimes they’ve been mesmerized by media machinations. And, sadly, sometimes they’re civic slackers.

Let’s encourage all the voters who aren’t informed and engaged to not vote. At least not until they are ready to be responsible citizens. Blimey. Let’s call them out! Of course, they won’t like our doing so. They’ll be madder than, shall we say, wet hens (or roiled roosters). But when they see that we’re ready to take them on, today and tomorrow and next week as well, then they might have to read a book or three, put their televisions out in the street, and show us that they do in fact have at least as much sense as God gave little greens apples. Golly, we’ll love ’em for it, won’t we?

While we’re waiting, we can check out Anscombe’s Paradox. As it happens, I’m drafting a scholarly paper on it. I’ll keep you posted — and that’s no idle boast!