The initial motive for writing “A Theory of the Calculus of Voting” was not the argument that subsequently became the focus of academic discussion, the necessity for positing a D term (“citizen duty”) to render the act of voting rational. Instead, our purpose was to show that people reacted “rationally” (i.e., logically) to an election's competitiveness. Admittedly the data we brought to bear here were weak, but with the addition of D the question arose as to whether we made voting rational only by rendering the concept of rationality a tautology: rational people voted because, with D, we assumed they were rational. However, one response with which I am sure Riker would agree is to note an asymmetry in our thinking about social processes. Few people claim to eat for a reason other than satisfying their own (private) needs as opposed facilitating the (public) objective of diminishing world hunger, and positing a growling tummy as a reason for entering a restaurant is hardly taken as a instance of rationality turned tautology. Yet the argument that the benefits of voting are dominated by a private D term as opposed to some public PB calculation occasions precisely that accusation.