TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

"Voting against their own interests"

Go To

neoYTPism Since: May, 2010
#26: Jan 25th 2011 at 6:53:11 AM

I think the point is that the poor are stabbing themselves in the back by voting for a party known for favouring the rich. Of course, they have the right to stab themselves in the back, but it still looks foolish.

Tsukubus I Care Not... from [REDACTED] Since: Aug, 2010
I Care Not...
#27: Jan 25th 2011 at 7:06:23 AM

Class consciousness isn't relevant in the USA. After all, there are plenty of non-unionized middle-class whites under 65 who vote Democrat.

"I didn't steal it; I'm borrowing it until I die."
Linhasxoc Since: Jun, 2009
#28: Jan 25th 2011 at 7:10:33 AM

I agree with EI in that the economic side probably has a lot to do with voters drastically overestimating their upward mobility–I think I remember reading a poll that said a full third of Americans thought that they would be millionaires some day. The social/single-issue thing I'd say doesn't count, because if that's truly what you care about, then you are actually voting in your own interest–just not your economic interest, because you don't care about that.

Tsukubus I Care Not... from [REDACTED] Since: Aug, 2010
I Care Not...
#29: Jan 25th 2011 at 7:16:03 AM

Fun fact, these "evil" corporations tend to divide their money evenly between Republicans and Democrats when you average the out. Some surprising ones lean Democrat, most notably Goldman Sachs.

"I didn't steal it; I'm borrowing it until I die."
Linhasxoc Since: Jun, 2009
#30: Jan 25th 2011 at 7:29:00 AM

[up]The classic argument there is that both the Democrats and the Republicans are pro-corporate, the Democrats are just less so. Remember how liberals were complaining that HCR was a corporate giveaway?

storyyeller More like giant cherries from Appleloosa Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
More like giant cherries
#31: Jan 25th 2011 at 7:39:47 AM

Why would a lobbyist burn their bridges by only donating to one side?

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#32: Jan 25th 2011 at 7:40:34 AM

ITT: A lot of whining and stereotyping that people of a certain income bracket cannot benefit from one set of values or voting for one party is against their interests.

I'd be careful where this thread treads from here on out, it's rapidly approaching the point where soon anyone who votes Republican for instance is going to be branded a corporate slave or idiot or something like that.

Cojuanco Since: Oct, 2009
#33: Jan 25th 2011 at 7:54:01 AM

[up][up]They don't. Which is why most corporate lobbying organizations will donate money to both candidates in a race. Either way, the candidate that wins is indebted to them.

neoYTPism Since: May, 2010
#34: Jan 25th 2011 at 8:03:30 AM

[up] This is why it would be better to vote for candidates OUTSIDE the two main parties.

BobbyG vigilantly taxonomish from England Since: Jan, 2001
vigilantly taxonomish
#35: Jan 25th 2011 at 8:05:38 AM

What, and waste your vote?

The social/single-issue thing I'd say doesn't count, because if that's truly what you care about, then you are actually voting in your own interest

This, btw.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
neoYTPism Since: May, 2010
#36: Jan 25th 2011 at 8:16:32 AM

"What, and waste your vote?" - Bobby G

This perspective has already been refuted from a variety of perspectives. Here's an example of such a perspective.

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#37: Jan 25th 2011 at 8:48:34 AM

Well, for the OP, the definition of interest isn't the dictionary definition of interest.

It's simply put like this:

How can you vote to get the maximum material (money, property, hoes) return?

It is in fact, completely disregarding any form of morality for total self-interest. So for instance, if the candidate they are voting for is specifically lowering taxes for their income bracket, at the same time as spending money to increase the number jobs for them and some program to help with market demand, then said college student would expect people of that group to vote for that candidate. If they instead vote for a candidate who is instead advocating none of those things but concentrating on gay marriage, war and illegal immigration, all of which either have no or negative impact on their income, then the statement is that they are voting against their "material" self-interest.

This is peculiar in that, it should not remain so in the long run, since consistently voting for someone who damages your material self-interest lowers your voting power and therefore makes you less able to vote for them in the future (as in, your vote matters less than a person consistently voting for their material self-interest).

saladofstones :V from Happy Place Since: Jan, 2011
:V
#38: Jan 25th 2011 at 8:50:36 AM

Believe what you want, its a wasted vote in the US.

Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#39: Jan 25th 2011 at 10:08:45 AM

It's fairly clear to see what examples of voters acting against their own interests would look like; women voting for legislative restrictions on abortions, atheists voting for parties with a disregard for church-state separation, citizens dependent on government programs voting for a party that slashes spending on a "tax cuts forever" platform, soldiers voting for a party with disastrously bad foreign/military policy. Likewise, it's fairly clear to see how good marketing convinces the voters to get behind bad ideas.

How can you vote to get the maximum material (money, property, hoes) return?
Oh hell yes, which political party is promising hoes now?winkevil gringrin
Believe what you want, its a wasted vote in the US.
Frankly, if you vote with the intent for changing policy to your aims, then half the time you're guaranteed a wasted vote even if you vote R or D, given how close the parties are.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
saladofstones :V from Happy Place Since: Jan, 2011
:V
#40: Jan 25th 2011 at 10:12:40 AM

I vote for whoever looks like the lesser evil, frankly, it hasn't stirred me wrong since evidently people like voting for the greater evil. :V

Voting isn't really to get policy changes, though, its kind of going with whatever policy disagree with the least.

Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.
MostlyBenign Why so serious? Since: Mar, 2010
Why so serious?
#41: Jan 25th 2011 at 10:17:15 AM

Given how unlikely it is that any particular election would be decided by your single vote, it is wasted anyway for all practical purposes.

BobbyInTheLibrary Defending the Library from the library, like I said Since: Dec, 2010
Defending the Library
#42: Jan 25th 2011 at 10:17:52 AM

*cannot watch the video from here, will check it when I get home*

Oh hell yes, which political party is promising hoes now?winkevil gringrin

Commies?

Scary Librarian | Hot Librarian | Spooky Silent Library | The Library Of Babel
saladofstones :V from Happy Place Since: Jan, 2011
:V
#43: Jan 25th 2011 at 10:18:50 AM

@benign: I disagree, enough people deciding not to vote has swayed elections I'm sure.

Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.
BobbyInTheLibrary Defending the Library from the library, like I said Since: Dec, 2010
Defending the Library
#44: Jan 25th 2011 at 10:22:29 AM

Well, I guess if you really think that the Republicans and the Democrats are just as bad as one another, you may as well give your vote to somebody else. I was assuming, I must admit, that most people would have at least some preference between the two, even if it's only "At least these guys annoy me less".

Scary Librarian | Hot Librarian | Spooky Silent Library | The Library Of Babel
saladofstones :V from Happy Place Since: Jan, 2011
:V
#45: Jan 25th 2011 at 10:23:44 AM

I figure whoever I dislike least is as good as a measure as any.

I don't mean to sound cynical but I can't really be idealistic about politics considering how it is.

Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#46: Jan 25th 2011 at 10:34:23 AM

*clicks link*

...Bobby, I am disappoint.

edited 25th Jan '11 10:34:35 AM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
RalphCrown Short Hair from Next Door to Nowhere Since: Oct, 2010
Short Hair
#47: Jan 25th 2011 at 10:38:43 AM

A previous poster raised a couple of points that need addressing.

The usual idea is "enlightened self-interest" rather than "total self-interest." You can support a government policy that benefits you indirectly, not just directly. For instance, if you run a restaurant next to an auto-parts plant, you would prefer that the plant not go out of business or ship its jobs overseas, so you might favor a bailout for the auto industry. Determining what constitutes "enlightenment" makes things much more complicated.

Morality and government don't go together. Society and churches enforces morality, governments enforce laws. Politicians talk about moral issues to bash the other side, score points with their base, confuse the issues they actually decide, and whip up emotions. People who vote based on morality may well be voting against their own interests.

The real world is complicated, messy, and mostly grey. Be wary of people who try to tell you it's all simple, pure, and black and white.

Under World. It rocks!
jewelleddragon Also known as Katz from Pasadena, CA Since: Apr, 2009
Also known as Katz
#49: Jan 25th 2011 at 11:12:56 AM

women voting for legislative restrictions on abortions

Because all women have abortions, right? just bugs me

storyyeller More like giant cherries from Appleloosa Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
More like giant cherries
#50: Jan 25th 2011 at 11:53:13 AM

There are Pro-Life women too.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

Total posts: 75
Top