ABSTRACT
The appeal of Rational Choice Theory (RCT) has been well explained by J. Coleman: the reason why rational action has "a unique attractiveness" as a basis for theory is that it is a conception of action "that we need ask no more question about it". In modern words, RCT is not a general theory because it uses a much too rigid and narrow conception of rationality. The RCTheorist confronted by a voter who tells him that he votes because he considers voting a civic duty will reject the interpretation of the subject himself and, by application of his own RCTheory. In contradiction with Coleman's main argument for RCT, RCT creates rather than eliminates black boxes in many circumstances. In fact, none of the RCTheories proposed to explain why people vote is very satisfactory. As to the theories that propose to reconcile RCT with observed data by introducing the notions of "frames," "biases," etc., they appear as empty.
