Ohio Politics Update

Wilson says that retired Case (CWRU) economics prof Bill Peirce is entering the Ohio gubernatorial race as a Libertarian candidate. I never met Bill Peirce (I don't think), so I don't have much to add, except this, about economists in general. It's the economists and economics-influenced political scientists who are always saying that it's (instrumentally) irrational to vote, given that the chances that one's vote will be decisive is so miniscule compared to the costs of voting. So why would an economist run for office as a third-party candidate, given that the chances of his winning are negligible? (By negligible, I mean "so small that one could ignore them without risk.")

The answer . . . there are other reasons to run for office than a reasonable chance of victory. My favorite example: The Reverend Al Sharpton in 2004. The good reverend knew that he couldn't win the nomination, let alone the general election. (The Nation may or may not (probably not) be ready for a black president; but I'm sure it's not ready for Sharpton.) But he ran to make sure that other candidates discussed issues of interest to his constituency and to voice a certain perspective in the debates, and so on.

Now, I don't know if that's why Peirce is running--as Wilson says, it's unlikely he will get much press coverage--but the point is still a valid one. There are more reasons to run than simply a reasonable chance of winning.