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.
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
.
Why would a lobbyist burn their bridges by only donating to one side?
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayITT: 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.
What, and waste your vote?
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"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.
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).
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.
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.*cannot watch the video from here, will check it when I get home*
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*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.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!

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.