Similarities Between Dubner And Levitt

649 Words2 Pages

Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt believe that voting in an election is seemingly ineffective, that the chances of you winning a lottery and actually affecting an election are very similar. This article I’m analyzing questions why we vote, and if voting is even worth your time. Dubner and Levitt make their argument by first taking the reader through their own thought process of why people vote in the first place. They came up with three possibilities. First, that some people still believe they can effect an election. Second, maybe people vote in the same idea that they play the lottery, for the fun and spirit of winning on such a slim margin. Third, some people have the idea that voting is our civic duty, and they’ll feel guilty for not voting. Getting into why people vote shows the reader that voting is really not that important. If the reader just recently voted, they would look at this and realize why they actually voted, and understand more where Dubner and Levitt are coming …show more content…

Would there even be an election anymore? Dubner and Levitt provide a similar example. They tell it in the form of a short story, with dialogue between the reader and their daughter.Telling a short, relatable story like that draws the reader closer to the article, making it easier for them to understand the argument. Further, if the reader has a daughter, they can picture this scenario in their head and make an even closer connection to this article and their argument.
Next, Dubner and Levitt compare elections today to elections in the past. Political parties used to give people an incentive to voting, by rewarding them with money or whiskey. Seeing that, why do people bother to vote now? There’s no real reward for it. The way Dubner and Levitt brought up something that was better, and comparing it to now, makes today's voting seem much worse and useless. This is another strong point to their

Open Document