Last week various bloggers debated the rationality of voting for or a against a party based on the state of the economy and the number of wartime casualties. Andrew Gelman reframes the argument. He points out that reasons for voting are not mutually exclusive:
For example, voter turnout is higher in elections that are anticipated to be close. This has a rational explanation—if an election is close, it's more likely that you will cast the deciding vote–and also a process explanation: if an election is close, candidates will campaign harder, more people will talk about the election, and a voter is more likely to want to be part of the big stories. These two explanations work together, they don't compete: it's rational for you to vote, and it's also rational for the campaigns to try to get you to vote, to make the race more interesting to increase your motivation level.
The Dish 