Today we’re faced with weighty choices.
We have to pick the leaders of our state and our representatives
in Congress.
Thanks to the slew of California ballot initiatives, we also
have the opportunity to vote on a few laws and a few bond measures
that could cost us down the line.
With everything at stake, it’s important to consider how
exactly we make our choices in the voting booth.
Certainly everyone votes with an ideology in mind, be it
Democratic or Republican, or even LaRouchie or L.O.G.I.C.ian. As
voters, we inherently try to forward our particular political
philosophy.
But more than that, when we cast our votes, each one of us must
pick a unique balance between our own self-interest and the public
interest.
Self-interest motivates some our voting decisions. Simply, we
ask ourselves, “How will this measure or that candidate
benefit me?”
Those of us studying biology, for instance, have a deep vested
interest in the passage of Proposition 1D, which would fund the
construction of a new life sciences lab on campus.
Without the lab, the life sciences program at UCLA could lose
some of its reputation and put students’ degrees at
stake.
There is, however, a trade-off.
Proposition 1D, while great for life science students, consists
of a large bond that will place an average $680 million-a-year debt
on the state’s general fund for the next 30 years.
It’s uncertain whether or not the state budget will be
able absorb this burden, and if there’s another budget
crisis, it’s possible that we’ll have to make spending
cuts or ““ gasp ““ tax hikes to service the debt.
In voting for this measure, certain students would be
prioritizing their self-interest over that of others, who might
lose out when the bond payments come home to their proverbial
roost.
But there’s another side to the coin.
We sometimes vote against our own self-interest in order to
promote a common good.
Proposition 88 is case in point. It would increase property
taxes to pay for K-12 textbooks and class-size reduction.
When property owners go to the polls today, they will have to
weigh the personal detriment of a tax increase against the public
benefit of educational resources for Californian children.
If they choose to vote for the proposition, they will have
committed an act of charity through the voting process. They would
have chosen to redistribute some of their wealth to others who may
be more deserving. If they vote against the proposition, they will
have chosen their own interest over the interests of schools and
children.
The story with Proposition 1D is much the same.Perhaps certain
taxpayers will see that the need for lab construction at UCLA is a
common good that outweighs a potential tax increase.
The inherent trade-off between the personal and public good in
voting elicits an interesting question about democracy itself: What
does the ideal of one person ““ one vote ““ really
mean?
Is it such that people should vote solely in their own
interest?
That’s certainly plausible. If democracy functioned in
such a way, election outcomes would simply be the sum of
everyone’s individual interest ““ a pure manifestation
of majority rules.
The majority would get exactly what is in its interest. To be
sure, there would be few taxes, except perhaps on minority voting
blocs like the very wealthy and the ferret-owners.
But we’re not all quite that selfish. Even if that is the
ideal, it could never be realized.
All of us, to a certain extent, feel a certain duty to promote
the common good, and when we vote, that will come across.
How much it does is up to you.
As you reflect on your votes today, consider how you struck a
balance between self-interest and the public good.
Regardless of how you voted, you’ll learn something about
yourself and your values.
Whether you’re feeling miserly or magnanimous, let
Reed know why at treed@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.