Overview
“Voting with your feet” is the idea that individuals can express preferences about government policy by choosing where to live or work, rather than by casting a ballot. On The Bob Zadek Show, the concept appears most fully in a 2013 episode with Ilya Somin, who treats it as a remedy for political ignorance: because the decision to relocate carries direct personal consequences, people have stronger incentives to become informed than they do when voting at the ballot box Is America Doomed by Voter Ignorance? (2013).
Bob Zadek frames the topic as a favorite, noting that he lives in California, where people are “voting with their feet by leaving” Is America Doomed by Voter Ignorance? (2013). Somin, in a 2019 appearance, describes a book in progress called Free to Move on the subject How to Create a Legitimacy Crisis (2019). In a 2020 episode on cities, Zadek refers back to a previous show titled “Voting with Your Feet” The Future of Cities (2020). The concept also surfaces briefly in a 2018 episode with Jonathan Tasini, where Zadek says he embraces it “warmly, warmly” The Two Faces of Janus v. AFSCME (2018).
Somin’s argument: incentives and information
Somin’s case rests on a comparison between market and political decisions. He asks why most people spend more time researching a car or television purchase than deciding whom to support for president, and answers that the difference lies in whether the decision will make a difference Is America Doomed by Voter Ignorance? (2013). The same logic applies to choosing a place to live: deciding whether to live in California versus Nevada, or San Francisco versus San Jose, prompts more learning than voting does.
He extends this to a broader social observation: people become annoyed when their political views are challenged, but attentive when told they are missing a bargain. The difference, he suggests, is that on subjects where knowing the truth will help them make better decisions, people are more open to new information Is America Doomed by Voter Ignorance? (2013).
Somin draws on evidence of voter ignorance to support decentralization. In the 2010 midterm elections, he says, two-thirds of the public did not realize the economy was growing rather than shrinking. He also cites expert agreement on free trade and on the economic benefits of technology, contrasted with public opinion that tends the other way Is America Doomed by Voter Ignorance? (2013). These gaps, he argues, mean that opportunities to improve policy go unrealized because voters do not see them.
Decentralization and its mechanism
Somin’s remedy is to limit the scope and complexity of government so that more decisions are made through foot voting—either in markets or by choosing among state and local governments Is America Doomed by Voter Ignorance? (2013). He notes that government at all levels spends nearly 40 percent of gross domestic product, which makes even a minimal understanding of the issues difficult. If government were responsible for fewer issues, voters would have a better chance of understanding those that remain.
Zadek puts the point in local terms: in the small town north of San Francisco where he lives, every issue is modest in size and he can vote with clarity because he understands it. To the extent power devolves to smaller, more local government, the quality of voter decision-making increases Is America Doomed by Voter Ignorance? (2013).
Somin is careful about what foot voting does and does not claim. He says the takeaway is not so much that voters do a better job in local elections, but that when an issue is controlled locally or at the state level, the ballot box is not the only option. He notes that large numbers of Californians have moved to places like Nevada, New Mexico and Texas. He also states that he is not arguing this proves all functions of government should be decentralized, and that other issues besides voter ignorance bear on the question Is America Doomed by Voter Ignorance? (2013).
Limits: national policy and those who cannot move
The 2013 episode identifies a boundary to foot voting. Zadek raises the federal government’s control over school curriculum, saying that once a decision is made so far away, the dilution of one vote is so profound that control is lost; against a national curriculum, a parent would have to move to Canada or Mexico to escape it. Somin agrees that it is much harder to vote with one’s feet against a national policy than against a state or local one Is America Doomed by Voter Ignorance? (2013).
In the 2020 episode on cities, Brent Orrell raises a different limitation. He agrees with Zadek’s preference for people being free to choose where they live, and notes that suburbanization has continued since the end of the Second World War. But he argues that cities have traditionally pulled together disparate people and skill sets that drive innovation, and that face-to-face communication matters because most human communication is non-verbal The Future of Cities (2020).
Orrell’s sharpest qualification is that not everybody can move. He describes elites as always having the option to opt out of a bad situation and generally exercising it, while middle and lower income groups do not have that option. When a city declines, he says, the worst effects fall on the most vulnerable people. He adds that changing one thing changes many others, and that second-order effects cannot always be seen The Future of Cities (2020).
Across episodes
The topic is treated in the 2013 episode with Ilya Somin, the 2018 episode with Jonathan Tasini, the 2019 episode with Somin, and the 2020 episode with Brent Orrell. The 2013 episode supplies the developed argument; the 2018 mention is a single expression of enthusiasm from Zadek, the 2019 mention is a closing note about Somin’s book in progress, and the 2020 treatment adds Orrell’s qualifications about face-to-face interaction and the unequal capacity to move. The excerpts show no development of the concept itself across the earlier and later treatments; what changes is the addition of limits raised by later guests rather than a revision of Somin’s argument.
What the sources do not cover
The excerpts do not state the outcome of any empirical test of foot voting, nor the details of Somin’s book beyond its title and expected publication. They do not describe the legal or constitutional basis for mobility, nor any case or statute governing it. The 2013 excerpt ends mid-sentence in a section heading, and the 2020 excerpt breaks off at a closing marker, so any material that followed those points is absent.