What's wrong with voting against your self interest?

[Voyager]

@Bone

It’s arrogant to think that someone votes against their self interests. Perhaps the argument can be made in the case of a narrow economic interest, but in total, people vote for their own self interests by definition. To quantify it, you’d have to measure the marginal utility they derive from whatever group of policies/politicians they are supporting.

The disconnect is when the person leveling the criticism assumes that the person they are criticizing shares the same values as them. That’s where the arrogance comes in.

No, people vote for their perceived interest, which might be incorrect from having been lied to by the politicians. For example, vote for me because I’m going to cut taxes on the rich which will help you. (Someday.) Or the Joe the Plumber argument, that cutting taxes on the rich is good because I’m surely going to be rich someday and then will be happy.

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.

[drad_dog]

@Bone

It’s arrogant to think that someone votes against their self interests. Perhaps the argument can be made in the case of a narrow economic interest, but in total, people vote for their own self interests by definition. To quantify it, you’d have to measure the marginal utility they derive from whatever group of policies/politicians they are supporting.

The disconnect is when the person leveling the criticism assumes that the person they are criticizing shares the same values as them. That’s where the arrogance comes in.

Why is it arrogant? Is it something to do with 'Elitism"?

If you vote on one issue, gun rights, believe everyone should be armed, and in your district you have mass shootings, accidental shootings, and killings of closely related persons (People killed with their own guns in other words) far outnumber robbery shootings and there were very few cases of a gun successfully used in self defense in your lifetime, then isn’t it fair to point that out?

If your kid kills your other kid would this be true?

[Bone]

@Voyager

No, people vote for their perceived interest, which might be incorrect from having been lied to by the politicians. For example, vote for me because I’m going to cut taxes on the rich which will help you. (Someday.) Or the Joe the Plumber argument, that cutting taxes on the rich is good because I’m surely going to be rich someday and then will be happy.

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.

That you think it’s merely perceived rather than actual utility is precisely what I was describing. Execution of rational choices is not limited to enlightened liberals.

[Bone]

@drad_dog

Why is it arrogant? Is it something to do with 'Elitism"?

@Bone

The disconnect is when the person leveling the criticism assumes that the person they are criticizing shares the same values as them. That’s where the arrogance comes in.

@drad_dog

If you vote on one issue, gun rights, believe everyone should be armed, and in your district you have mass shootings, accidental shootings, and killings of closely related persons (People killed with their own guns in other words) far outnumber robbery shootings and there were very few cases of a gun successfully used in self defense in your lifetime, then isn’t it fair to point that out?

Pointing out factual matters != criticizing a person for not voting their own self interests.

If your kid kills your other kid would this be true?

You’ve made the error of using an unclear pronoun.

[septimus]

I agree with most of the comments. Since an individual vote has insignificant effect in a national election it is easy to vote altruistically for the greater good. It is logical to follow one’s own greed or gluttony in the short term while still hoping for a better world for future generations. It is annoying when someone asserts that gays cannot be conservative, or that a Soros or Buffett must have a secret selfish motive for supporting progressive policies.

But I agree with Buck Godot. The charge is often leveled NOT against those voting altruistically, but those who are trying to vote their selfish interests but are too ignorant to know how.

@Buck_Godot

I think this is mainly thrown against people who have been fooled into thinking that that a given policy is in their self interest when in fact it is against it.

Say for example a lower income person being in favor of a flat tax because they think it will lower their taxes, or a protesting to “keep the government’s hands out of my medicare”.

[drad_dog]

@Bone

Pointing out factual matters != criticizing a person for not voting their own self interests.

Not true. The interest of him and his family would be for gun control.

You’ve made the error of using an unclear pronoun.

How so?

[YogSothoth]

Here’s my main problem with it: its dishonest and can be muddled so that anyone can purportedly believe and vote for anything.

If your interests, whether social or economic, are honest, then people can gain your support by appealing to your self interest or try to logically argue against it to get you to change your mind. That’s standard political discourse.

However, if you go against your self interest, then your actions are random. People can’t depend on you for anything. You’re not stable, your ideas are unreliable, and probably invalid. You might as well flip a coin to vote, there’s as much logic in that than your choices.

I can understand why some people want to hide their agendas, its devious, but follows a logical pattern where you’re trying to get to a goal through some nefarious means. But I don’t think your topic is referring to those people.

[Blaster_Master]

@septimus

But I agree with Buck Godot. The charge is often leveled NOT against those voting altruistically, but those who are trying to vote their selfish interests but are too ignorant to know how.

The thing is, I’ve often seen people express an opinion of how can blacks or gays vote Republican. It’s even been expressed here in this thread. I am neither, but I can imagine plenty of scenarios where that might happen. Consider that just because someone is black or gay may not necessarily be as important of an issue to them as other issues.

For example, imagine a gay man who has been in a committed relationship with his partner for some time and is interested in getting married, and for the sake of this example, let’s assume it’s before the recent SCOTUS decision. Let’s also assume that he has other issues he cares about, like perhaps he happens to agree with the general Republican economic and foreign policy, maybe he’s pro-gun, whatever. Of course, he’s upset that many of the leaders of the party are preventing him from getting married, and he’s working hard to change those opinions. But he’s faced with a dilemma. Does he vote with the party that agrees with the majority of his opinions but will continue to fight against marriage equality, or does he vote Democrat just for that sake?

Perhaps he thinks about this long and hard, and realizes that, though he wants to get married, he’s well enough off that the financial aspects of marriage aren’t a big deal, and their wills are in order, and their friends and family all support those decisions. He’s certainly not concerned his partner is going anywhere either. Perhaps he sees that the tide is turning on this and he can continue to work within the party and in other causes to effect social change and win that right at some point in the future. So he decides that he’ll have to concede that point and vote what he thinks is ultimately best.

Many would accuse him of voting against his own self-interest, because Republicans hate gays. And while this is a bit of an extreme example, I do think it’s quite unlikely that most people have a candidate that they agree with on EVERY point. So, to a certain extent, we’re ALL voting against our best interest in at least some fashion, but ultimately we’re either voting for our own best interest overall, or maybe even what they hope is in the country’s or the world’s best interest.
Now, sure, maybe we could make an argument about people that get misled, as in people saying the poor are voting for Republicans, or clearly the rich that vote Democratic have ulterior motives. But even if you’re actually right about that, it’s not like they’re knowingly going into the booths to screw themselves over. Politicians misrepresent and lie about stuff all the time, some bigger and more often than others, but they’re still voting in what they believe is their interest, they’re just wrong about it.

[Bone]

@drad_dog

How so?

Because? I have no idea what you’re trying to say.

In any event, you’ve misquoted me. I’ve reported the post so that it can be corrected.

[Ambrosio_Spinola]

@Chessic_Sense

I haven’t seen it done by both sides. I’ve only seen/heard Democrats say it about poor and middle class Republicans, believing anyone who is not rich will be hurt by Republican policies. This, from the party that votes to give other people food stamps and cell phones.

I don’t know about this - you hear Republicans say of minority Democrats in particular that they are being bamboozled and kept on a “plantation” by Democratic policies, and that if they just embraced proper conservative values that they would become prosperous and happy - and that voting for Democrats keeps them down and dependent. (See, e.g., Allen West.)

Personally I think you see both sides engage in this behavior because most people in the US really do hold their political positions in good faith and think if their favored policies were enacted it would result in better results for most people. That’s because if they didn’t believe that, they would hold different favored policies. It’s probably actually better that you believe your political opponents are voting against their interests out of ignorance than to believe that they’re doing it to deliberately cause harm because they are evil.

[billfish678]

@Ambrosio_Spinola

. It’s probably actually better that you believe your political opponents are voting against their interests out of ignorance than to believe that they’re doing it to deliberately cause harm because they are evil.

And that’s where American political discourse went down the shitter…when the “other side” was no longer “folks who disagree with you” and became “evil bastards who want to fuck you over”.

[drad_dog]

There’s a lot of harm being done in the self interest of candidates and journalists. It’s under the guise of their job. They hope it goes to hell so that

1. It will be the other guys fault
2. They will be “right”
3. They can institute “shock” changes to status quo to cover their greed and self dealing (in the case of politicians and their large business partners)
4. They can always write a book, lecture, lobby, join a news network, in essence change chairs, (only to do so again for a higher salary later)
5. Sell more of the same gunk, only this time it’s even more of an emergency. It can be spun a million ways. (If the world doesn’t end on dec 14 then I can explain why it didn’t, I wasn’t wrong, keep watching this space)
6. for some dare I say it, it’s a millennial thing having to do with their faith, and disgust with the world, and wanting to see it end in fire (During their lifetime. Who wants to miss it and just be historical chaff)

Is it in your interest? The electorate is a slate upon which is written a lot of lies. That isn’t in dispute.

[wolfpup]

@Buck_Godot

I think this is mainly thrown against people who have been fooled into thinking that that a given policy is in their self interest when in fact it is against it.

Say for example a lower income person being in favor of a flat tax because they think it will lower their taxes, or a protesting to “keep the government’s hands out of my medicare”.

@septimus

But I agree with Buck Godot. The charge is often leveled NOT against those voting altruistically, but those who are trying to vote their selfish interests but are too ignorant to know how.

And I agree with both of you. As someone who has used the phrase quite a lot, this is exactly the way I mean it. A more complete phrase might be unintentionally voting against their own self-interest.

@Fubaya

I generally don’t like the idea of voting for your self interest, I think that’s how you get Idiocracy. But like everything, it depends.

I’ve voted locally against tax cuts which would have given me more money because I knew the government couldn’t afford it. I would have little respect for anyone who voted for a tax cut when they knew it would make us broke next year.

“Self-interest” doesn’t necessarily mean narrow, irrationally self-centered self-interest. It’s in my self-interest and yours to have a working government that doesn’t go broke and provides essential public services. Voting for tax cuts as a knee-jerk response to everything without considering the consequences isn’t “self-interest”, it’s more aptly described as “stupid”. Sort of like a family deciding to save money by no longer paying the electricity bill. What could possibly go wrong?

@Bone

… The disconnect is when the person leveling the criticism assumes that the person they are criticizing shares the same values as them. That’s where the arrogance comes in.

That can happen, sure, but as one might infer from the other responses above, I believe 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. 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?

[John_Mace]

@wolfpup

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?

I don’t know. How many?

[Bone]

@wolfpup

That can happen, sure, but as one might infer from the other responses above, I believe 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 this is true - that the majority of cases both sides agree on basic values or specific objectives, unless these are elevated to such a high level as to be come meaningless. Take, taxes for example. I want the lowest possible taxes and the lowest level of government possible. As a matter of principle, lower taxes and less government is the goal in and of itself. Do you think my opponents agree with this basic value? Certainly not on the specific objective.

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?

First of all, people generally aren’t voting for tax cuts for the super rich, they are voting for politicians. Secondly, even if such support doesn’t aid them financially, they could easily gain utility in supporting a cause they believe in, acting altruistically. Thirdly - how many?

As someone who has used the phrase quite a lot, this is exactly the way I mean it. A more complete phrase might be unintentionally voting against their own self-interest.

I don’t see how this is any different. It’s another version of saying that you know what’s better for a person than they know themselves. If only the other person understood things in the way that I do, they wouldn’t be voting wrong!

[Voyager]

@Bone

That you think it’s merely perceived rather than actual utility is precisely what I was describing. Execution of rational choices is not limited to enlightened liberals.

That was the first example I thought of. A conservative who votes for someone who will not help him economically but who has the same social agenda is another example.

So: Trickle down is bullshit, but the other side wants to take away my guns, so I’ll vote Republican. Okay. (Assuming Dems really want to take away his guns.)

Wow, trickle down will get me a job - the perceived benefit is incorrect.

[Voyager]

@John_Mace

I don’t know. How many?

Given that these tax cuts are sold on the basis that they will increase investments and jobs, most of them. If they were being sold on the basis that the poor ole rich are being hurt by so much taxation, I might think otherwise.

[John_Mace]

I’d really like to know how many “ordinary people” support tax cuts for the rich, thinking those tax cuts will help them. And let’s be clear… we’re talking about tax cuts for the rich only, not tax cuts for the rich + everyone else. I’d be shocked if there were many such people.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a non-trivial number of people who would support a cut in federal income taxes for “everyone”, thinking they will benefit when, in fact, they don’t pay any income tax at all. But that’s a different matter.

@Voyager

Given that these tax cuts are sold on the basis that they will increase investments and jobs, most of them. .

Do you have a cite to support that claim?

[drad_dog]

If you vote for someone who is not interested in you you are voting against your interest. That’s what a demagogue is.

[Frylock]

The OP question is a good one. What I generally say here is that voting against your self-interest is fine, but if you’re doing so unwittingly or unthinkingly, then there is a problem.