First, the American presidential election averages the opinions of 200M people to obtain 1 bit of information. Selecting a president from the population requires about 28 bits. Where do the other 27 come from?
Second, in a presidential election each voter exercises a miniscule amount of power/influence over their own life - about one-200millionth - and a lot of similar tiny increments of influence over everybody else, all adding up to 1. But why should each voter have 200M times more business meddling in the lives of everyone else than governing themselves? The setup is ripe with perverse incentives.
Both effects get starker as a democracy grows in size.
You're right. The right to vote in a presidential election does seem rather paltry.
But, just because you don't choose to participate more in the political process and have more influence doesn't mean that you are unable to participate. That is a very big distinction that a lot of people have shed blood over in the past three hundred years.
But, as paltry as the vote may seem, you get the benefits of a reasonably transparent, efficient and honest government system. And, the last 9 months aside, you are able to participate in one of the largest, most vibrant economies in the world at one of the (comparatively) lowest levels of taxation in the industrialized world.
First, the American presidential election averages the opinions of 200M people to obtain 1 bit of information. Selecting a president from the population requires about 28 bits. Where do the other 27 come from?
Second, in a presidential election each voter exercises a miniscule amount of power/influence over their own life - about one-200millionth - and a lot of similar tiny increments of influence over everybody else, all adding up to 1. But why should each voter have 200M times more business meddling in the lives of everyone else than governing themselves? The setup is ripe with perverse incentives.
Both effects get starker as a democracy grows in size.