# What's wrong with voting against your self interest? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 11, 2015, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542 "2015-08-11T12:11:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542/61 "2015-08-12T15:44:49Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I don’t know if it’s an either/or situation - and I’m cognizant that this is simply an example I raised to rebut the point that we all have the same goals so I’m not going to get into it in detail. But as a goal itself, it could be accomplished by pegging the spending levels of government to some ratio of something. After that, choices need to be made on what to use the appropriation for. > > I would say that limiting the size of government as a goal in and of itself has downstream benefits, as well as downstream costs. At the extremes, as in the scenario you put forward, I would decline those outcomes if the tradeoff was a very large governmental presence. In part because I think some of the examples you state are mutually exclusive with large governments. > > I don’t think you’re wrong - but I don’t think you’re exactly right either. In any case it is a tangent. My main point was that what is construed as voting against one’s interest upon examination is simply a different measure of marginal utility at the individual level. What is the marginal utility of which you speak? You can use yourself as an example if you want. If it’s not economic then you have to account for the fact that the people you are voting for may have very different values than you but wouldn’t say so. (Hard to believe I know) If they have economic utilities in mind and you vote for them for emotional, or social values reasons then you may be disappointed. That is being bamboozled basically. Or your children or grandchildren may be disappointed when (smaller government; or family values or etc.) turns out to really be (Income disparity or etc.) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542/62 "2015-08-12T16:01:01Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > It’s my intention to assert the opposite. But you knew that, right? It’s my intention to assert that most of those who voted for them did so because believed that it was in their own best economic interests, and that they were gullible fools for doing so. > > Government should be small enough, according to Grover Norquist, “to be drowned in a bathtub.” I’m occasionally reminded of just how far removed from reality American politics is. > > I separated two of your quotes from different posts by a dotted line so that I could respond to both of them at once, since here we come to the real crux of the matter. > > I’m not disputing the obvious fact that people vote on the basis of the totality of positions of any given politician, and that politicians of even one party aren’t a monolithic entity. **John Mace** made the same criticism, and it misses the point. The point is the remarkable consistency among all of them in the degree to which the interests of the wealthy and the corporatocracy are being pandered to at the expense of the remaining 99% of the general public. This is most notable with Republicans but I don’t think it’s exclusive to them. > > I listed in [#44](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18593396&postcount=44) some of the state governors most nefarious for this, and federally, yet more Congressional tax cuts for the rich. It’s _ **a fact** _ that the US has the worst income disparity in the first world as measured by the Gini coefficient. It’s _ **a fact** _ that the national debt is at staggering record levels even as the rich enjoy unprecedented beneficence in tax treatment. It’s _ **a fact** _ that the approval rating of the US Congress has long been in the sewer, often in the single digits, rarely above the teens. So with a range of 10-20% approval, it seems that the voters who elect their Senators and Congressmen in some apparent act of inspired wisdom also apparently think their duly elected representatives always turn out to be worse than useless. In a recent poll 60% of voters thought that most members of Congress would sell their Congressional vote for cash or campaign contributions (which just leaves me wondering what the other 40% could possibly think!). Thoughtful post, as usual, **wolfpup**. But… Income inequality is a global phenomenon. The US may be in the lead, but we often are. So, it’s unclear to me that this is something you can blame on poor Americans voting agains their interests. Also, did any of these trends reverse themselves when the Democrats held the presidency and BOTH houses of Congress? As for voters and Congresscritters, it’s well established that Americans are of two minds-- they think all the Congresscritters are bad, _except for theirs_. They keep voting the same people back in with an extremely high percentage. It’s one thing for people to answer a telephone pollster but quite another thing when you look at what people actually do in a voting booth. They, seemingly, hate Congress _in toto_, but like their particular guy or gal. I’ve just never heard of large groups of not-rich Americans clamoring for tax cuts on the wealthy only. Poor conservatives might have more admiration for rich folks than poor liberals, and be less likely to feel the rich should be “punished”, but that doesn’t mean they want to give them tax cuts at the expense of themselves. Also, keep in mind that most discussion of “tax cuts” in the US mean federal income tax and most poor people don’t pay any in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542/63 "2015-08-12T16:13:55Z")
Further… I think you simply made a mistake, **wolfpup** , in stating that large numbers of “ordinary people” vote for tax cuts for the wealthy thinking those tax cuts will help them. It’s a minor point, anyway. The tax code is the way it is, I believe, mainly because wealthy people and corporations paid lobbyists to influence Congress and twist the tax code to their benefit. It’s not “ordinary people” who spent time crafting a tax code with more loopholes in it than a block of Swiss Cheese. This stuff goes on behind the scenes, and “ordinary people” don’t see it. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542/64 "2015-08-12T16:22:50Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > It’s my intention to assert the opposite. But you knew that, right? It’s my intention to assert that most of those who voted for them did so because believed that it was in their own best economic interests, and that they were gullible fools for doing so. I didn’t know that - that’s why I asked. I take you at your word that this was your intention, but I think if you read back how you phrased it my (and John’s) interpretation is a fair reading. But no matter, you’ve clarified. My criticism still stands though - you assume that the reason for their vote was based on economic reasons. Their vote could have been in spite of economic reasons, and to group those large masses of folks together and assuming they were all gullible or believed they would get something they would not, instead of actually valuing some other aspect of the candidate greater than their economic interests, is precisely what I mentioned earlier: > [@Bone](#): > > Ultimately I think people place great weight or value on things that vary wildly from person to person. Failure to account for those differences appears to folks as voting against their interests. This is why I label it as arrogance. It’s thinking that other people would value things similarly, when in reality, I don’t think this is the case. In any case, your original assertion, that _"in the vast majority of cases both sides agree on basic values and even on specific objectives, but disagree on policies of how to achieve them. "_ I don’t think is true. To get to the point where this may be true would be at such a high level as to be meaningless. As to some of the “facts” you mention, it would be more persuasive if you didn’t litter your facts with editorial commentary. The worse, in the sewer, staggering…etc. Not that those items you present are in any relevant to the point I’m making. > [@](#): > > It’s _ **a fact** _ that there’s billion-dollar industry exclusively devoted to spinning PR bullshit for vested interests, whether it’s tobacco, oil, coal, health insurance companies, or the politicians that they control. It’s _ **a fact** _ that the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson have been, quite literally, interviewing candidates for the position of US President to see who best meets their needs, like a corporate tycoon interviewing for an assistant flunky. And on whose behalf their billions will put the spin industry to work so that the rubes will vote correctly – an industry _ **whose lucrative job it is** _ to never let a fact stand in the way of their clients’ interests. To such an extent that [it’s been suggested that the US is no longer an actual functional democracy](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy). You see this billion dollar industry spinning PR as a bad thing, is that accurate? Here’s another area where we probably don’t agree on basic values. I think the PR industry in this case is at rather neutral, and in a celebration of free speech, it’s great. > [@](#): > > But the voters are smart enough to ignore this avalanche of propaganda and assess the complex issues fairly and objectively, right? Like I said, it seems like you think people who don’t share your beliefs and who would vote differently than you would, are doing it wrong. If only they shared your beliefs, values, and knowledge, they would all vote in lock step with you! It can’t be that they simply don’t share your values or value different aspects of governmental intrusion differently. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542/65 "2015-08-12T16:26:53Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Still no cite, huh? At least **wolfpup** made an attempt. As for “flat tax”, that is not a tax cut only for the rich and it needn’t shift the burden from the rich to the poor. Flat tax proposals are generally revenue neutral. Given that, can you point us to one which does not shift the tax burden from the rich? (Not just to the poor - to the 99% is what is really happening.) Some of the rich who are paying Romney tax rates might actually see tax increases, assuming the law is written without loopholes. (Hah!) But unless you are claiming that the average tax rate for the rich is below that of the middle class, it will shift the burden from the rich. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542/66 "2015-08-12T16:29:40Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Flat tax proposals are generally revenue neutral. Given that, can you point us to one which does not shift the tax burden from the rich? (Not just to the poor - to the 99% is what is really happening.) Are we operating under the assumption that this is an undesirable outcome? ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542/67 "2015-08-12T17:11:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Thoughtful post, as usual, **wolfpup**. But… Income inequality is a global phenomenon. The US may be in the lead, but we often are. So, it’s unclear to me that this is something you can blame on poor Americans voting agains their interests. Also, did any of these trends reverse themselves when the Democrats held the presidency and BOTH houses of Congress? > > As for voters and Congresscritters, it’s well established that Americans are of two minds-- they think all the Congresscritters are bad, _except for theirs_. They keep voting the same people back in with an extremely high percentage. It’s one thing for people to answer a telephone pollster but quite another thing when you look at what people actually do in a voting booth. They, seemingly, hate Congress _in toto_, but like their particular guy or gal. > > I’ve just never heard of large groups of not-rich Americans clamoring for tax cuts on the wealthy only. Poor conservatives might have more admiration for rich folks than poor liberals, and be less likely to feel the rich should be “punished”, but that doesn’t mean they want to give them tax cuts at the expense of themselves. Also, keep in mind that most discussion of “tax cuts” in the US mean federal income tax and most poor people don’t pay any in the first place. Inequality can be reinforced by different things obviously. (We don’t have kings or dictators here but we have inequality) By definition if US voters vote for politicians that increase inequality then they are voting against their economic interests, for whatever reason you may ascribe. To say the US is in the lead for “inequality” because we are in the lead on other things doesn’t make sense. You could also say the US should be in the lead in having equality; it would be more sensible. You lose on that point. Even people in congress know it is dysfunctional. One or both parties may be responsible at any time. Everyone who votes votes for someone they agree with more. Pols may be more or less the pawn of large interests. None of this proves anything. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542/68 "2015-08-12T17:18:06Z")
There certainly ARE a lot of liberals who ask questions like “What’s Wrong With Kansas?” They act as if it’s self-evident that only an idiot would base his vote on the social issues and pick the Republican when the Democrats are offering so much more pork barrel. But no one ever asks "What’s wrong with “Steven Spielberg and Barbra Streisand?” But they’re multimillionaires who vote liberal because of the social issues, even though the Republicans offer them more tax breaks. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542/69 "2015-08-12T17:30:01Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > There certainly ARE a lot of liberals who ask questions like “What’s Wrong With Kansas?” They act as if it’s self-evident that only an idiot would base his vote on the social issues and pick the Republican when the Democrats are offering so much more pork barrel. > > But no one ever asks "What’s wrong with “Steven Spielberg and Barbra Streisand?” But they’re multimillionaires who vote liberal because of the social issues, even though the Republicans offer them more tax breaks. “What’s wrong with Kansas” was a book I think, not somebody trying to troll poor people and condescend to them. What is the compulsion to ascribe to social scientists the “condescension” meme? Unless you only vote in any particular way to counter what you see as Coast inhabiting elitist intellectuals? It’s basically just the social science version of the confederate flag. What’s your issue with the fact set you gave above? We need to investigate why rich Hollywood filmmakers vote the way they do, when they know they will not go hungry if they pay more taxes and they believe in a more equitable society? This is a study you want to devote time to? This is the big dichotomy that you want to point out? ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542/70 "2015-08-12T17:40:35Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > “What’s wrong with Kansas” was a book I think, not somebody trying to troll poor people and condescend to them. What is the compulsion to ascribe to social scientists the “condescension” meme? Unless you only vote in any particular way to counter what you see as Coast inhabiting elitist intellectuals? It’s basically just the social science version of the confederate flag. Specifically, it was a book by Thomas Frank. NOBODY in the USA is starving. We Americans have a luxury people don’t have in many other lands: we won’t starve and we won’t be imprisoned/killed by our government no matter who wins. So, whether we’re rich or middle class, we can afford to choose the issues that matter most to us. If those are pocketbook issues, swell. If they’re social issues, that’s fine and dandy, too. A small business owner in Kansas who votes for the anti-abortion Republican candidate isn’t stupid, and neither is Steven Spielberg. They’re both making principled decision about their priorities. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542/71 "2015-08-12T17:47:26Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Flat tax proposals are generally revenue neutral. They don’t have to be. They can be set to raise more, less or the same. > [@](#): > > Given that, can you point us to one which does not shift the tax burden from the rich? (Not just to the poor - to the 99% is what is really happening.) > Some of the rich who are paying Romney tax rates might actually see tax increases, assuming the law is written without loopholes. (Hah!) But unless you are claiming that the average tax rate for the rich is below that of the middle class, it will shift the burden from the rich. Well, the key is to close loopholes. Technically, their called “deductions”, since a loophole has the connotation of being not quite legal. A flat tax that treats all income equally, and that has a fairly high standard deduction (Forbes wanted to set it at $33K back in 1996 when he was touting it) will do the trick. Now, it’s not really a flat tax since it has a deduction, but once you get past that deduction, it’s flat. No mortgage deduction, no deferred interest tax rate of 15% (take that, hedge fund managers!), no nuthin’. You’d probably need to index long term gains for inflation, but that would be it. Set the tax rate at whatever suits your purpose (less revenue, same revenue, more revenue). Set the deduction at whatever you want to make it more fair (for whatever definition of “fair” you are using). ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542/72 "2015-08-12T17:51:01Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Specifically, it was a book by Thomas Frank. > > NOBODY in the USA is starving. We Americans have a luxury people don’t have in many other lands: we won’t starve and we won’t be imprisoned/killed by our government no matter who wins. > > So, whether we’re rich or middle class, we can afford to choose the issues that matter most to us. If those are pocketbook issues, swell. If they’re social issues, that’s fine and dandy, too. A small business owner in Kansas who votes for the anti-abortion Republican candidate isn’t stupid, and neither is Steven Spielberg. They’re both making principled decision about their priorities. Except if your candidate doesn’t really care about you or your issue. Later your issue isn’t important anymore, you look to them and they just blame it on the liberals. Then there is something distinctly idiotic about the way you are politically used. I think it was Deep Throat who said “Follow the money” We’re relatively rich but any of us could go down very easily even in America, and do every day. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542/73 "2015-08-12T17:55:51Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Oh good grief. Obviously the tax cuts are for everyone - it’s just that the ones for the ordinary people are small and the ones for the rich are big. > I trust you are not arguing for a cite that tax cuts for (but not exclusively for) the wealthy got sold on job creation. Since the rather good marketing guys in the Republican party are selling it this way, that justifies my answer. > > But supporting tax cuts for everyone when you don’t get one (or more likely, tax credits instead of direct payments) is an excellent example of voting against one’s interests. It’s very simple. Give us a cite that supports this statement (emphasis added): _How many ordinary people who cheerfully vote for tax cuts for the super-rich do you think do so because of deeply held “values” even if they know it will hurt them personally, as compared to the number who do so because they believe they will personally benefit?_ So, show us where “ordinary people” are clamoring for tax cuts for the rich so that they, themselves, will benefit. Don’t tell me about some folks who voted for some Congresscritter who, once in office, voted for tax cuts for the rich. Show us polling data that indicates that’s what people want. If you are going to rely on voting records of Senators, then should we assume that everyone who voted Kerry into office wanted him to vote for the Iraq AUMF? Alternatively, just let it go. I don’t think it’s a significant point anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542/74 "2015-08-12T17:59:30Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > But supporting tax cuts for everyone when you don’t get one (or more likely, tax credits instead of direct payments) is an excellent example of voting against one’s interests. I missed this. How is supporting tax cuts for everyone when I don’t get one an example of voting against my interests? It may be against my specific individual economic interests, but not against my overall interests taken together. For example, what if I prioritized others more than myself. If everyone else gets a tax cut and not myself, then based on those priorities, such support would be in my interests. Put another way, let’s say there are two goals, A and B. I assign some value of utility in attaining both A and B, let’s say, 70 and 30, respectively. There are exactly two politicians running for office, Albert and Bernie and each supports a different policy goal, A and B. If I value as I say, goal A more than goal B, shouldn’t I support the one that is supporting A? In the scenario you posit, A is economic interests. I’m saying, it doesn’t have to be. Other interests can trump economic interests, and a person pursuing those ends to the detriment of their economic interests is not necessarily acting against their interests. You actually make this same observation here: > [@Voyager](#): > > If people make rational choices that voting against their actual interests is for the good of the country or something then no problem. Liberals do this all the time when we vote to raise taxes. Though, in the above, I wouldn’t say that liberals vote against their actual interests - I would simply say that their valuation of the good of the country surpasses their valuation of their specific individual economic interests. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542/75 "2015-08-12T18:10:42Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You see this billion dollar industry spinning PR as a bad thing, is that accurate? Here’s another area where we probably don’t agree on basic values. I think the PR industry in this case is at rather neutral, and in a celebration of free speech, it’s great. I don’t think it’s quite that simple. Disclaimer: this is a VERY touchy topic to discuss without sounding like I’m doing exactly what the left is frequently (and sometimes fairly) accused of, which is treating voters who disagree with us incredibly condescendingly. I will do my best to not fall into that trap. Here’s my hypothetical: there’s a town. The town owns some land that is currently a park. A valuable amount of oil was just found on that land. An oil company wants to pay the town a fairly large amount of money to buy the park and drill for oil. Should the town accept the deal? Well, there are clearly legitimate arguments on both sides. This seems like an absolutely perfect situation for some good old fashioned democracy. So the town has a town meeting. At the town meeting they have a vote, majority rules, on whether to accept the deal. So, what is the “right” outcome of that vote? Well, I’m not a resident of that town (and of course, it’s an imaginary town), so it’s not up to me to say that the right outcome is either to accept or turn down the offer. What I do believe, however, is that the “right” outcome is one in which as many of the town residents vote as possible, and they are as objectively informed as possible. If every single voter is at the meeting, and the meeting begins with a 6 hour absolutely objective presentation created by the Really Objective Institute of Fairness, followed by a lively but respectful two hour debate with people standing up and arguing for both sides, and then they vote, well, hey, that’s democracy for you, and hopefully they made a wise decision. And in fact, I think that the vote in that fairly contrived hypothetical is better than one in which, for instance, the situation is the same except that the date and time of the town meeting is poorly publicized so most people don’t hear about it, or there’s a town meeting with no presentation or debate, just a vote, etc. So, the question is… what about political advertising? Is the election result “better” if one side has outside supporters that pour millions into advertising? What if the local NBC affiliate is owned by a competing oil company who wants to hurt the first oil company and thus strongly opposes the deal, but this ownership is not made public? Is it your opinion that all of those things are not only legal but capital-G-Good? ([Somewhat related and hopefully interesting thread I started a few years ago.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=653378&page=2)) ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542/76 "2015-08-12T20:27:12Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I don’t think it’s quite that simple. You’re right. Real life variables are much more complicated then the example offered, but as a summary to point out differences to rebut the claim that we share basic values and specific policy objectives it works well enough. > [@](#): > > So, the question is… what about political advertising? Is the election result “better” if one side has outside supporters that pour millions into advertising? What if the local NBC affiliate is owned by a competing oil company who wants to hurt the first oil company and thus strongly opposes the deal, but this ownership is not made public? > > Is it your opinion that all of those things are not only legal but capital-G-Good? In principle the outcome for society is better if there exist mechanisms which allow the advertising, and allow opposition to voice their objections. Whether or not that the specific actions are good or not is not possible to determine based on the fact pattern. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542/77 "2015-08-12T20:43:45Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > In principle the outcome for society is better if there exist mechanisms which allow the advertising, and allow opposition to voice their objections. I’m not sure that “advertising” needs to be involved. I think that democracy definitely works better if the voters are exposed to passionate arguments in favor of all sides of an issue. It’s not axiomatic that advertising must be involved in order for that to happen. By the way, apropos of nothing, I just wanted to compliment you as a poster… you’re a vastly outnumbered conservative on a liberal message board, but I’ve always found your posts to be interesting, relevant and polite. Kudos. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2015, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542/78 "2015-08-12T21:33:55Z")
Well thanks! I appreciate the feedback. I think the line between advertising and politicking is thin enough that they are equivalent. I generally consider advertising to be a form of speech just as I do money as a form of speech so while I agree with you that advertising isn’t necessary for democracy to work, advertising must be allowed generally for democracy to work. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542/79 "2015-08-13T00:14:45Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Well thanks! I appreciate the feedback. > > I think the line between advertising and politicking is thin enough that they are equivalent. I generally consider advertising to be a form of speech just as I do money as a form of speech so while I agree with you that advertising isn’t necessary for democracy to work, advertising must be allowed generally for democracy to work. YMMV. We may look back someday, maybe very soon, and say that democracy worked better under the fairness doctrine. I think by this post you are coming out as a Citizens United fan? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2015, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542/80 "2015-08-13T01:14:28Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > We may look back someday, maybe very soon, and say that democracy worked better under the fairness doctrine. The 1950s called. They want their doctrine back. The fairness doctrine is laughable in the age of the internet, twitter and other social media. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-voting-against-your-self-interest/727542.md?page=5)