"Voting against their own interests"

I've heard that catchphrase bandied about by college students. But my question is, who decides what the average voter's interests ought to be, and why should it not be the voter? Isn't Western democracy built on the idea that the people should be the ones who decide what is in their best interests?

I think the "interests" mentioned in the title usually refers to a person's own self-interest? Like it would be strange for a person to not take the action that benefits them (materially) the most?

Well, could they perhaps not see it as forgoing a material good in exchange for a social benefit (say, conceptions of morality, or anything else bigger than themselves)? And I'm just uneasy with how the people that tend to use this term seem to connote that they know better than the unwashed masses on how to run said masses' lives.

edited 24th Jan '11 10:56:44 PM by Cojuanco

Morality? What is this thing you speak of?

More seriously, it has been my own experience that people usually put their material interests above social/"moral" interests.

edited 24th Jan '11 10:59:52 PM by melloncollie

Well, I'm referring mostly to the shock many of my urban colleagues have when they see rural and other working-class people vote for conservative Republicans, as if they've just beheld them tearing down the Washington Monument or something. It smacks rather of the paternalism they claim to eschew.

edited 24th Jan '11 11:04:48 PM by Cojuanco

It's against the self interests of the the working person to vote in favour of the Corporate CEO.

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

The idea would be that they're voting against the very thing that they are supporting. An example would be the Tea Party promoting lower taxes, but also voting against Obama, who lowered taxes.

And do they not have the right to decide what they believe is best for them? I mean, a candidate can give them all the benefits they want, but if they turn up their noses at their values, that's not a convincing argument to vote for that candidate.

It's just the usual story of middle class liberals believing they know better than everybody else.

"Of course it's in your interests to vote left! You're working class! I've never even spoken to a working class person, but I totally sympathise with your plight!"

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Well, one could argue it's nobodies business to claim that wrist cutting is against their own interests. And who are we to decide for them what their "best interests" are?

But if you vote for say, Adolph Hitler, and are a Jew, to bring out Godwin, it could generally be seen as unhealthy for your interests, for the typical desire of prosperity. But I suppose, that Jew might really want to be persecuted under German rule.

The claim isn't really meant that way.

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

I usually hear it in this context.

Low income 'homeland' Americans voting for the Republican party, which is definitely more focused towards the higher class, and probably will not bring about policies that would benefit them.

It's like how most people in the Tea Party seem to be older and on Medicare, but they're rabidly against socialized medicine, and government control of anything.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

"Get government out of my medicare!"

That's actually kind of true, though, since voting for Right Wing, under Left Wing and not Right Libertarian belief, will economically undermine them. And it's assumed they don't want to be economically undermined and become homeless and jobless or something. The idea of their "interests" isn't so much their direct interests, but what's "fair" for them. That's what "interests" means in this case.

edited 24th Jan '11 11:32:20 PM by Ukonkivi

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

Well, if I want to be my usual pessimistic self, would argue that the right is good at manipulating these type of people into thinking they are on their side.

A more realistic answer is that these voters are single issue voters, and agree on other conservative issues, such as gay marriage, or abortion (like my religious grandparents, who only vote conservative for those two reasons)

I always interpreted voting as you choose the person whose policies you agree with, which typically matches your party. The elected official essentially represent the majority of the people's wishes. If, however, the elected individual chooses to vote differently than what they stated they would vote, then conflicts within the party ensue. I've heard people on both sides of the political spectrum complain about this.

edited 24th Jan '11 11:34:06 PM by snailbait

"Without a fairy, you're not even a real man!" ~ Mido from Ocarina of Time

OTOH, I believe a good number of them vote the way they do based on cultural characteristics - because Joe Democrat supports abortion, while Nelson Gopher is pro-life.

That's largely why I'm conservative, too, and voted for the Republican local congressman even if he was Teabagger - that, and he got things done in the district.

edited 24th Jan '11 11:32:51 PM by Cojuanco

Yes, that is one of the ways that the Right can and does win over the poor.

They are economically voting against their interests, but in terms of Civil Rights, they are voting for their interests. Or more, against the interests of people they don't like.

edited 24th Jan '11 11:33:52 PM by Ukonkivi

Genkidama for Japan, even if you don't have money, you can help![1]

Thorn: Bobby G's statement seems like evidence that you're right.

As I said before, though, it's pretty much inarguably voting against your own interests if the very reason you voted for a candidate is the opposite of what the candidate actually does. Like if you voted for a candidate because he says he's pro-puppy and it turns out he kills puppies in his back yard.

As been said above, most often it happens because policies someone might benefit from come in the single package with those that would harm very same person. In this case, people simply prioritise one interest over other.

Now, this one might have find some of those priorities screwed, but this one is not someone who has any right to decide for them.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

I think it has a lot to do with people thinking that they are going to become rich someday, even if they don't have a concrete plan for making it happen, and that when they make it, they don't want to pay taxes or anything like that.

I've spoken to some people who think somewhat like that, but they're clear fiscal conservatives. It's the social conservatives who are more likely to, basically, fall prey to fearmongering.

Its more complex than that. Jared Diamond discusses an example where owners of family farms out west vote conservative to express their desire for small, non-intrusive government. This aligns with their generally individualistic outlook, something that "fits" family farming pretty well. Yet in the long run, it can be shown that these policies have enabled wealthier people and developers to move in and build expensive vacation homes and industrial facilities, which raises the property values and local cost of living to the point where they cant afford to keep their farm. The point he makes is how hard it would have been for these farmers to have predicted all that 20 years or so ago when it began happening.

Ideally, "interests," as the OP means the term, is something like "the greatest good for the greatest number." You can prove mathematically that certain policies produce more benefit for more people than certain other policies.

In practice, those policies aren't implemented as efficiently as they could be, people "fall through the cracks," and public funds get diverted from other policies, so you have a ready-made issue with which to incite the voters. The slogans boil down to "government bad."

Once in office, though, you become part of the problem, and to stay in office, you need money. To get that money, you wind up serving the interests of your donors, not your constituents or your principles. To get re-elected, you need to convince a bare majority of those constituents to vote for you. So you appeal to emotion instead of logic, you distract, you blur the distinction between fact and opinion, and you smear your opponent with every tool available. As a matter of political survival, you must convince the voters that their interests coincide with the interests of billionaires. QED.

Under World. It rocks!

^^ Which book is that in? It sounds interesting.

^ And trial lawyers and the oil industry.

edited 25th Jan '11 6:04:48 AM by storyyeller

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play