-
4. Foot Voting, Federalism, and Political Freedom
- NYU Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
83 4 FOOT VOTING, FEDERALISM, AND POLITICAL FREEDOM ILYA SOMIN 1. Introduction The idea of “voting with your feet” has been an important element in debates over federalism for several decades.1 Economists, legal scholars, and others have analyzed its efficiency and equity. But foot voting is still underrated as a tool for enhancing political freedom : the ability of the people to choose the political regime under which they wish to live.2 Section 2 of this essay explains some key ways in which foot voting in a federal system is often superior to ballot box voting as a method of political choice. A crucial difference between the two is that foot voting enables the individual to make a decision that has a high likelihood of actually affecting the outcome. By contrast, the odds of casting a meaningful ballot box vote are vanishingly small. This reality both enhances the individual’s degree of political freedom and incentivizes him or her to make better-informed and more rational decisions. In addition, foot voting in a federal system will often enable the individual to choose from a wider range of options, thereby further increasing political freedom. Obviously, this does not mean that all decisions should be made by foot voting rather than at the ballot box, or that all political power should be decentralized. Many other issues must 84 Ilya Somin be considered in determining how centralized a political system should be. But the enhancement of political choice is a crucial advantage that is often overlooked. It justifies greater political decentralization than might be optimal otherwise. Section 3 considers some possible limitations of foot voting in a federal system as a tool for enhancing political freedom. These include moving costs, the possibility of “races to the bottom,” and the problem of oppression of minority groups by subnational governments . Each of these sometimes poses a genuine constraint on effective foot voting. But none is as severe a limitation as critics claim. Section 4 argues that the case for foot voting under federalism should be expanded “all the way down” to local governments and private communities, and “all the way up” to freer international migration. It builds on a growing recent literature that advocates granting greater autonomy to local governments relative to regions.3 Foot voting between localities creates greater choice with lower moving costs than does foot voting between large regions. This is even more true of foot voting between private planned communities. Just as foot voting can be expanded all the way down to the local level, there is also a strong case for extending it “all the way up” to the international level. The potential gains from freer international foot voting in some respects dwarf those that can be achieved domestically.4 Moreover, for people living under authoritarian regimes, foot voting through international migration is often their only means of exercising political choice. 2. Foot Voting and Political Choice A variety of political theories emphasize that government should be freely chosen by the governed. Some argue that such political freedom has inherent value.5 As the Declaration of Independence puts it, “Governments . . . deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed.”6 Individuals who lack the ability to choose their governments are not fully free.7 Other theories primarily emphasize the instrumental benefits of political choice. When people are able to choose their governments, political leaders [3.85.63.190] Project MUSE (2024-03-19 06:05 GMT) Foot Voting, Federalism, and Political Freedom 85 have stronger incentives to adopt policies that benefit the people, or at least avoid harming them.8 And the people themselves are able to select the policies they prefer. In modern states, the ballot box is the main mechanism for popular political choice. If the public disapproves of government policy, it can vote to “throw the bastards out” and elect a new set of bastards who will, hopefully, do better. There is no doubt that the ballot box does indeed enhance political choice. Most important, it effectively incentivizes political leaders to avoid large and obvious disasters. It is significant, for example, that no modern democracy has ever had a mass famine within its territory,9 even though such famines are all too common in dictatorships. Democratic electorates also have some success in forcing government policy to conform to majority public opinion.10 Ballot box voting understandably has a central place in modern theories of political freedom. It is a major improvement over the traditional...