Alabama authorities say a home burglary suspect has died after police used a stun gun on the man.  Birmingham police say he resisted officers who found him in a house wrapped in what looked like material from the air conditioner duct work.  The Lewisburg Road homeowner called police Tuesday about glass breaking and someone yelling and growling in his basement.  Police reportedly entered the dwelling and used a stun gun several times on a white suspect before handcuffing him.  Investigators say the man was "extremely irritated" throughout and didn't obey verbal commands.

Montgomery Education Foundation's Brain Forest Summer Learning Academy was spotlighted Wednesday at Carver High School.  The academic-enrichment program is for rising 4th, 5th, and 6th graders in the Montgomery Public School system.  Community Program Director Dillion Nettles, says the program aims to prevent learning loss during summer months.  To find out how your child can participate in next summer's program visit Montgomery-ed.org

A police officer is free on bond after being arrested following a rash of road-sign thefts in southeast Alabama.  Brantley Police Chief Titus Averett says officer Jeremy Ray Walker of Glenwood is on paid leave following his arrest in Pike County.  The 30-year-old Walker is charged with receiving stolen property.  Lt. Troy Johnson of the Pike County Sheriff's Office says an investigation began after someone reported that Walker was selling road signs from Crenshaw County.  Investigators contacted the county engineer and learned signs had been reported stolen from several roads.

NPR Politics presents the Lunchbox List: our favorite campaign news and stories curated from NPR and around the Web in digestible bites (100 words or less!). Look for it every weekday afternoon from now until the conventions.

Convention Countdown

The Republican National Convention is in 4 days in Cleveland.

The Democratic National Convention is in 11 days in Philadelphia.

NASA has released the first picture of Jupiter taken since the Juno spacecraft went into orbit around the planet on July 4.

The picture was taken on July 10. Juno was 2.7 million miles from Jupiter at the time. The color image shows some of the atmospheric features of the planet, including the giant red spot. You can also see three of Jupiter's moons in the picture: Io, Europa and Ganymede.

The Senate is set to approve a bill intended to change the way police and health care workers treat people struggling with opioid addictions.

My husband and I once took great pleasure in preparing meals from scratch. We made pizza dough and sauce. We baked bread. We churned ice cream.

Then we became parents.

Now there are some weeks when pre-chopped vegetables and a rotisserie chicken are the only things between us and five nights of Chipotle.

Parents are busy. For some of us, figuring out how to get dinner on the table is a daily struggle. So I reached out to food experts, parents and nutritionists for help. Here is some of their (and my) best advice for making weeknight meals happen.

"O Canada," the national anthem of our neighbors up north, comes in two official versions — English and French. They share a melody, but differ in meaning.

Let the record show: neither version of those lyrics contains the phrase "all lives matter."

But at the 2016 All-Star Game, the song got an unexpected edit.

At Petco Park in San Diego, one member of the Canadian singing group The Tenors — by himself, according to the other members of the group — revised the anthem.

School's out, and a lot of parents are getting through the long summer days with extra helpings of digital devices.

How should we feel about that?

Police in Baton Rouge say they have arrested three people who stole guns with the goal of killing police officers. They are still looking for a fourth suspect in the alleged plot, NPR's Greg Allen reports.

"Police say the thefts were at a Baton Rouge pawn shop early Saturday morning," Greg says. "One person was arrested at the scene. Since then, two others have been arrested and six of the eight stolen handguns have been recovered. Police are still looking for one other man."

A 13-year-old boy is among those arrested, Greg says.

Pages

Are You Responsible For The Outcome Of The Election?

Nov 5, 2012
Originally published on April 8, 2013 11:44 am

We've all heard arguments that go something like this: it's not rational to vote, because the probability that your vote will make a difference is vanishingly small. This idea is formalized as "the paradox of not voting," and follows from a simple application of rational-choice theory. But whether you vote might have more to do with subtle and interesting aspects of human psychology — the niggling feeling that you're ever so slightly responsible for the outcome of the election — than with a rational analysis of costs and benefits.

First, a closer look at the paradox. If you're a rational agent who votes in order to influence the outcome of the election, then the small costs associated with voting — the five-minute trek to your local polling place, the interruption to your workday, or even the hassle of remembering to mail in your absentee ballot — should be enough to outweigh the miniscule probability that your vote will change the outcome of the election (what FiveThirtyEight calls your "return on investment" as a voter).

But this argument rests on some assumptions that may not hold true. Perhaps voting serves ends other than influencing the outcome of the election, such as promoting civic engagement, or propagating those handsome "I voted" stickers. Or perhaps it would be so irredeemably terrible if your preferred candidate lost that you'll happily brave the walk and the lines and the interruption to your day despite the infinitesimal probability that your vote will change the outcome — a Pascal's wager, of sorts.

(Though note that the cost associated with your candidate losing would have to be really steep for this wager to be justifiable. In a race with 5 million voters, your preferred candidate trailing by .2 percent, and the "cost" of voting assessed at one cent, having your candidate win would have to correspond to an expected utility equivalent of over $80 million dollars to compensate for the low probability of casting the deciding vote.)

There may be something to these ideas. But I think there are also psychological forces that drive us to the ballot box, forces that stem from the way we attribute responsibility.

Let's back up a step. To assess the probability of casting a deciding vote, we compare two possible worlds. In one world, you vote along with other voters, casting your ballot for your preferred candidate. In the alternative world, you relax at home with a soy latte and your radio tuned to NPR while everyone else does exactly what they did in the first world: the voters vote and the non-voters don't vote. The only difference between these worlds is you. To assess whether or not your vote "made a difference," we compare these two worlds to see whether the election has a different outcome in each one.

This criterion for "making a difference" is reasonable in some cases. But it doesn't correspond to the way we typically assign causal or moral responsibility. Consider an execution in which three renegade soldiers simultaneously and fatally shoot an unfortunate victim in the heart. No single soldier's actions made a difference to the resulting death: if we "undo" the actions of any one soldier while holding everything else fixed, then the death would still have occurred in just the way it did. Yet most of us won't hesitate to hold each soldier responsible.

One way to make sense of cases like these is to propose that responsibility is a matter of a person's intentions and actions, not of the outcomes of those actions. But this idea won't do: we don't treat attempted murder as equivalent to actual murder, or a successfully executed touchdown pass as equivalent to one that — by no fault of the thrower — was intercepted.

So how do we assign moral and causal responsibility for outcomes that result from the actions of multiple people? And what can this tell us about the paradox of not voting?

Some recent ideas about causation and moral judgment from computer science, philosophy and psychology shed interesting light on the first question. The basic idea is this: that we don't assess whether someone is responsible for some outcome by comparing what actually happened to a fictional world in which everything other than the actions of that person are held fixed, but instead figure out how different the world would have to have been for the actions in question to have made a difference; where the more different the world, the less responsible the person.

That's pretty abstract, so let's return to our unfortunate shooting victim. Even though each individual soldier doesn't make a difference to the outcome when we hold the actions of the other two soldiers fixed, it isn't hard to imagine an alternative world in which we also change the actions of soldiers #2 and #3. And in that world, soldier #1 would make a difference to the outcome. So we judge soldier #1 moderately responsible — not as responsible as a lone shooter, but more responsible than any single member of a 10-person firing squad.

Researchers Zultan, Gerstenberg and Lagnado tested these ideas in a paper published earlier this year and found a good fit to human judgments. Applied to voting, their findings suggest that people's judgments of responsibility don't involve a straightforward "same or different" comparison between the election outcomes in the world where a given person voted and the world in which she enjoyed a soy latte at home. Instead, people consider how different the world would have to have been for the non-voter's abstention to have made a difference.

Because we can typically imagine a possible world in which her vote was the deciding vote — after all, if she chose a latte over voting, why not other like-minded voters, too? — we still hold the non-voter somewhat responsible for the outcome of the election, even if her abstention didn't, strictly speaking, "make a difference."

But it needn't follow that we hold individual non-voters (or voters, for that matter) highly responsible for the outcome of the election. Zultan, Gerstenberg, and Lagnado also found that individuals were held less responsible for outcomes when other people could have played a role equivalent to theirs, and that's certainly the case in presidential elections, where voters for the same candidate in a given state are effectively interchangeable.

Still, these ideas can help explain why someone might feel at least a little bit responsible for the outcome of an election, and therefore hazard the minor costs of voting knowing full well that their vote won't change the outcome. That feeling of responsibility, however small, could be magnified by the sense that choosing not to vote is tempting fate, a worry known to boost people's estimates of the probability that the undesirable outcome will occur — in this case, your preferred candidate losing.

Of course, psychological explanation is no substitute for rational justification. But you'll still find this voter heading to her local polling place tomorrow morning.


Guest blogger Tania Lombrozo is an assistant professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley.You can keep up with more of what Tania Lombrozo is thinking on Twitter: @TaniaLombrozo

Copyright 2013 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.