Voting against your interests: Why does it happen so often?

[Lord of Oop North]

I wouldn't vote for Jesus. He'd probably want to take away my guns.

He'd probably also get crucified three days after being sworn in. Then we'd be stuck with Peter. [shudder]

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Slight derail here, but that is not the case. In my 14 yrs of service the command structure made a serious point out of "do not hurt civilians, unless they get caught in the line of fire and there are no other options."

Yes the military has an over-all "fuck the civilians" mentality when it comes to the fact that a bunch of pussies who never saw combat and make decisions based on how it will effect their poll numbers are in charge, ie white house. There is still a very large element in the military that remembers being hamstrung in Veitnam because of politics.

The democrats are all for personal freedoms, yet if I want to say have a public prayer session at my school I get castigated. Now I can have a rally all day long for athiesm at my school, but I mention god once and I can just start counting down to when I get suspended. Frankly the whole do as I say not as I do attitude of the democrats gets them a bad rap. When freedom of speech and religon and gun ownership are a one way street people start to look at you in a different light.

That´s pretty much my point. If your reason for gun ownership is to fight against government when needed then who´ll you fight if the situation truly needs fighting? The Army consists of normal people like you who wouldn´t fight against you if the government truly is so awful. So no reason to own guns because of that.

I´m not aware of democrats making a point of general gun ownership. As I said who really needs assault rifles or handguns?

[Horza]

Horza answers this question with the power of _political SCIENCE!

First up, people tend to believe what they want to believe and then find evidence to support it:

It Feels Like WeÂ’re Thinking: The RationalizingVoter and Electoral Democracy

The familiar image of rational electoral choice has voters weighing the com-

peting candidatesÂ’ strengths and weaknesses, calculating comparative dis-

tances in issue space, and assessing the presidentÂ’s management of foreign

affairs and the national economy. Indeed, once or twice in a lifetime, a

national or personal crisis does induce political thought. But most of the

time, the voters adopt issue positions, adjust their candidate perceptions,

and invent facts to rationalize decisions they have already made. The im-

plications of this distinction— between genuine thinking and its day–to–day

counterfeit— strike at the roots of both positive and normative theories of

electoral democracy.

And it doesn't get better the more more informed a voter is - high-information voters are if anything better equipped to rationalise any disjuncture between the issues and their voting preferences.

As well, voters political memory tends not to be particularly reliable, or long:

Musical Chairs - Pocketbook Voting and the Limits of Democratic Accountability

The best current defense of democracy is the theory of retrospective voting. Citizens may not know much about the issues, the argument goes, but they can tell good from bad outcomes, and that allows them to remove incompetent or corrupt incumbents. Moreover, knowing that the voters use that rule, every government will have every incentive to do what they want, thus fulfilling the promise of democratic theory. Some formal analysis and much empirical work during the last several decades, particularly on “pocketbook voting,†has seemed to uphold this interpretation. We find, however, that the voters cannot manage the task of competent retrospection. They forget all about most previous experience with the incumbents and vote solely on how they feel about the most recent months. Knowing that, governments pander to the voters near election time, showering them with one-time benefits atypical of their performance in office.

This is without touching upon Rick Shenkman's Just How Stupid Are We? - Facing the Truth About the American People and the Ur-Text, The American Voter .

People vote against their self interest because in general they don't pay much attention to politics and don't handle large amounts of political information particularly well, tending to fall back on heuristics and other mechanisms to make their choices. When you add the tendency to choose positions then gather evidence to support them you've got an outline of the sorts of processes that lead people to vote for Kennedy in 1960 because FDR abolished Prohibition, believe inflation soared in the late Reagan period when it dropped and that Clinton racked up national debt when he cut it down. This is a state of affairs the two major parties capitalise on - their ads, positive and negative are geared towards lodging factoids in people's heads and creating moods rather than informing and explaining policy positions.

[Annelise]

I agree that it's a lot to do with messaging. I'm unsure what length of time we're talking about, but Republicans have obviously excelled, while Dems have more or less floundered over the past 8 years. It's not surprising that those perceptions will not change quickly.

EHK, did these folks make any comments about Republicans, the GOP? Just curious if they were pro or generally disgusted with both parties.

It's trite, but ultimately, I think the best messaging is in results. Which is a big reason why the Republicans are struggling so much right now. If the Dems start producing, it really could produce some broad realignment, which might include the folks you're talking about. But that obviously takes time.

As far as the fear/anger re: socialism.. some of FDRs stuff got the exact same billing and criticism, but hardly anyone even associates it with socialism nowdays. Just including that for some historical perspective; it's not new. The key is, if solutions are implemented and they work for the majority of people, they will come to view that attack as more and more empty, for the near term. I think people are ultimately more pragmatic than they are ideological on a lot of these issues. If they view the government as working for them, I don't think they'll give a crap what label you stick on it. The problem is during the .. ideas and crafting stage, it's hard to visualize how it's going to turn out in the end. These are, after all, complicated freakin' problems. The economy, healthcare, climate/energy, immigration.. the point being, it's pretty easy to get caught up in soundbytes, spin and political stereotypes, because the issues are too big for most people. That's why this stuff ends up in Washington, for all we rip on the government as being incompetent.

Focused on domestic issues in my ramblings, as that's what the folks cited in the OP seemed most concerned with. :)

[Tempra]

Way to be nonresponsive. Don't you have a kitten to waterboard?

Cute. You've become worse than a crusading ex-smoker ever since you've become "enlightened." You don't have to try so hard to fit in with that group. And you might try reading what people say lest you come off as a raving banshee. Or not, if you like being a caricature.

[Tempra]

I have not read all of the replies the the OP, but I wanted to chime in my response to why these people would vote against their interests:

1. Religion. conservative people want to vote for Jesus, and the GOP has aligned themselves with the religious right, and these people who want to vote for Jesus vote Republican.

2. Abortion. I have spoken to SEVERAL people here in South Carolina that this issue is numero uno in their hearts and they absolutely will not vote democrat because the democrats support baby murder. (their words not mine, I think they are stupid).

3. Taxes. These people really dont pay taxes at all, but they dont know that. Keep preaching no new taxes, and the democrats want to tax you to death, and they will run to the polls to vote Republican.

4. Personal Freedoms (Guns, Religion, etc): Never mind the Patriot Act is the biggest infringement on out personal freedoms ever, The democrats want to take your guns!

I think these are the biggest reasons I hear. Oh, and Obama is a Muslim who supports terrorists.

And i'm sure you know that all of these reasons can be flipped around to explain why democrats get votes also, right?

[Frog Eater]

And i'm sure you know that all of these reasons can be flipped around to explain why democrats get votes also, right?

of course

[Annelise]

2. Abortion. I have spoken to SEVERAL people here in South Carolina that this issue is numero uno in their hearts and they absolutely will not vote democrat because the democrats support baby murder. (their words not mine, I think they are stupid).

Well, if you're going to be a 1 issue voter, murder (as they view it) is a moral one, anyway. Voting your pocketbook, who is going to tax you the least, not as much. Heh.

[Lord Tarnin Aragoth]

This question is most often asked in the context of "economic interests." Democrats look at poor, rural voters, and assume that, because their economic interests align with Democratic social welfare programs, that these poor rural voters are "acting against their interests" by voting for Republicans. Economic interests are only a part of the issue. So why do poor, rural voters vote Republican?

1) Non-economic issues. I think a lot of supporters of legalized abortion assume that their opponents are arguing in bad faith - that "pro-lifers" do not ACTUALLY believe that a fetus is a person, and that the abortion of a fetus is somehow equivalent to the murder of a baby. Imagine, for example, that there is a candidate that you agree with on every single issue, save for the fact that he views gays as psychologically disordered and believe that they ought to be stripped of any legal protections. If you vote for the other candidate, are you really voting against your interests? Nope. You are saying that this one issue is so important, so central to who you are, that you simply cannot support a candidate with a different position.

2) The left in this country is perceived as intellectual and arrogant. I think President Obama both recognized and exemplified this phenomenon with his "cling to guns and religion" comment. The comment was at the same time arrogant and condescending while also being a recognition that the Democratic Party is unsuccessful in its appeals to poor, rural voters because of the amount of time Democrats spend talking about how ignorant poor, rural voters and their priorities are.

3) The government is associated with inefficiency. "Socialism" is a short-hand in this country for "government control and intervention." Keep in mind that the average American interacts most frequently with the government at their local DMV. Government means long lines, rude, non-responsive customer service, and unresolved concerns.

4 Some people are bigots. What more needs to be said here?

[S John]

He'd probably also get crucified three days after being sworn in. Then we'd be stuck with Peter. [shudder]

:lol:

Slightly back on topic, I think a lot of it comes down to Urban/Rural, Blue/Red crap. Whichever one people identify with the most is the pill that theyll swallow even if there's a couple other things in the pill that they don't like. For me at least, I know that there is no perfect candidate. Every time I cast a vote I am voting for one or two things that I don't like.. just the way it is.

I don't know why this thread made me think of this, but for me it kinds highlights the different attitude and culture in different regions of the country that maybe leads to some of the seemingly wacky decisions that we're talking about.

About 2 months ago I went to visit a good friend of mine who lives in Western Pennsylvania, a little ways outside of Pittsburgh. As many of you know, myself and my family came from northern WV so this is an area that I know pretty well. I have been living in DC for 2 years and I hadn't been up in that area in a while. Around here there are tons of hybrid cars, they are everywhere, nobody even gives a second thought to seeing a smart car zipping down the street. So when I got up to my friends town I pulled into a gas station and it was mostly big, dirty working man's pick-ups in the lot. I couldn't help but think, 'man, you would look like a huge douchebag if you pulled into this lot in one of those little pissant cars.' :lol: I guess I'm saying that even things that most people would agree are good things, just dont seem right in some places. :)

[Galactus]

He'd probably also get crucified three days after being sworn in. Then we'd be stuck with Peter. [shudder]

Peter cut off people's ears.

What more do you need in a head of state?

There is still a very large element in the military that remembers being hamstrung in Veitnam because of politics.

There's no such thing. War is an extension of politics by other means. There's no point in fighting a war if it does not achieve some kind of political goal.

Someone on the Paradox boards had a "map of political segregation" thing, and the interesting part is this: In most countries, rural areas tends to be conservative and urban ones to be more leftish.... Except in Sweden, where the reverse is true. (a few regional abberations, Småland is pretty much a stronghold for the christian-democrats, for instance) someone pointed out that it might have to do with the kind of work that was going on: Eg. Farmers tended to be more conservative than loggers/miners.

(there's even some interesting studies done based on the different kinds of industrial workers in Sweden, loggers and rafters usually organized themselves much earlier and to a much greater degree than iron-workers)

[Lord Tarnin Aragoth]

I think LTA has some pretty good points.

I also think that if the Republican party became more moderate and kicked out the religious wackos and right-wing social issues wingnuts, they would probably stand a good chance of being electable again.

This may or may not happen. I will tell you that "single issues" make a big difference...even if the Republicans went back to being the party of true fiscal conservatism (which they ditched with George Bush and drunken sailor spending)and got rid of the wingnuts and evangelicals, I would hesitate to give them my vote unless they changed their position on abortion.

I could vote for a moderate (fiscally conservative, socially centrist), pro-choice Republican...but that seems to be a dying breed. And there certainly aren't any here in Georgia.

Thanks Chataya. I will disagree about one thing - the Republicans won't improve their electoral chances by "kicking out" religious conservatives. Instead, Republicans need to find a way to be inclusive of both those religious conservatives as well as centrists and moderates, in much the same way the Democratic Party presently accommodates both leftwing extremists and moderates. Put another way - Ted Kennedy could never win an election in Virginia or Montana, and if the Democrats had insisted on running candidates with Kennedy's liberal credentials, they would have lost both of those Senate elections.

Unfortunately for the Republican Party, diehard liberals are apparently more capable of playing nice with moderates than diehard religious conservatives are. Right now, the Democratic Party is a comfortable home to both Daily Kos diarists and people who, 15 years ago, would have been mainstream Republicans.

[Shryke]

Let's not forget that the people you want to "kick out" making up a scarily large portion of the electorate. Without them, the GOP simply doesn't have the numbers to compete. It's one of the reasons they pandered to them in the first place.

And i'm sure you know that all of these reasons can be flipped around to explain why democrats get votes also, right?

Duh.

That's largely the point. People generally vote for stupid and/or irrational reasons.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

This may or may not happen. I will tell you that "single issues" make a big difference...even if the Republicans went back to being the party of true fiscal conservatism (which they ditched with George Bush Ronald Reagan and drunken sailor spending)and got rid of the wingnuts and evangelicals, I would hesitate to give them my vote unless they changed their position on abortion.

Let´s give the honor to the right guy. :leaving:

[El-ahrairah]

2. Abortion. I have spoken to SEVERAL people here in South Carolina that this issue is numero uno in their hearts and they absolutely will not vote democrat because the democrats support baby murder. (their words not mine, I think they are stupid).

Well there are some pro-life Democrats such as Harry Reid, and likewise Republicans with the opposite position. So I don't go by party. But unless his opponent was running on a platform of, say, ending global warming by nuclear winter, I could never vote for someone who values personal convenience over innocent life.

I wouldn't vote for Jesus. He'd probably want to take away my guns.

Obviously He never mentioned guns, them being nonexistent at the time, but we can tell His position on other personal weapons.

Luke 22: 36

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

[Shryke]

lol

You know that passage is Jesus telling them "We're going somewhere dangerous, grab a weapon" and not "Everyone should go buy a sword", right?

Funnily enough, he then tells Peter to NOT use the sword.

[Annelise]

Well there are some pro-life Democrats such as Harry Reid, and likewise Republicans with the opposite position. So I don't go by party. But unless his opponent was running on a platform of, say, ending global warming by nuclear winter, I could never vote for someone who values personal convenience over innocent life.

Is it solely an issue of values, or do you also desire your candidate to make it a political priority? That is, would you vote for someone who was pro-life, but that issue was toward the bottom of their to do list?

[Black Dow]

Had the occasion to mingle with a bunch of the 'enigmatic' white working class today. A variety of issues got discussed. They bitched about predatory credit card companies going out of their way to fuck you over, comparing it to legalized loan sharking. Several bitched about a local chemical plant that spent 50 years spewing noxious shit into the air and how many employees involved now have cancer. One lady related the story of how she was forced to file for bankruptcy due to her sons medical bills some years back. They spoke fondly of social security and of getting all that you can out of it. They got pissed at big corporate businesses who tried (and failed) to rape their union pension fund some years back. They bitched about price gouging at the pump, demanded that the government should do something about it. There were more topics, can't recall them all, but you see where this is going.

Now just about all of these are, at least ostensibly, Democratic issues. Issues that you'd expect a liberal democrat, or god forbid SOCIALIST, to come out on their side much more often then a Republican would. Not always eloquent, not always nuanced, but they essentially made the Democratic Party argument and took that side on each of these issues. And do you know what came next?

Someone mentioned Obama. Someone else bitched that he's taking this country in the wrong direction. Then EVERYONE chimed in about evil socialism this, socialism that, and how he's destroying the country.

What.The.Fuck?? They just spent half an hour ranting like the lovechild of Huey Long and Fidel Castro, then they turned their venom against the guy who actually did sit the credit card companies down and demand a halt to their most abusive practices, the only party that actually advocates environmental issues, the guy who has been talking universal healthcare for the last year and a half, the only party that's not actively trying to rape unions....where the hell does this come from?

How the hell do these people (and sooo many more) have such a MASSIVE cognitive disconnect between the issues they take up, the arguments they make, and the people they actually end up electing? Do they not get that they're voting pretty much 100% against their interests? Is the Republican rhetoric that good? The Democratic image marketing that bad? Are guns and abortion that huge of a deal, or are they simply ignorant of reality?

For the life of me I can't understand it. To listen to them talk, the issues they choose, the sides they take up...these people should be the most loyal, true blue, liberal democrats you could find. They shout down the word socialism though they advocate for significant degrees of it and benefit from it every day. What the hell is going on and how the hell can Democrats bridge that gap?

Because bridging that gap, if it ever can be done, is A key to absolute permanent majorities and a real demographic shift to the left in American politics. I believe these are the folks Obama was talking about who are disillusioned with government and so 'cling' to their guns and religion. They have most of the proper positions and arguments. They just need that spark, that enlightenment, to make the connection between those issues and the party that pretty damned obviously best represents them. It seems so obvious. So easy.

So why the fuck isn't it happening? Why hasn't it happened yet?

You make several interesting points here. Should the Democratic Party stop supporting affirmative action, then perhaps it will become much easier for the white working class to view that party as 'on thier side'. Until that happens, that, as much as anything else, including guns, is why what you expect to happen hasn't, in fact, happened.

I realize that not all Democrats support affirmative action; that not all Republicans oppose it; that some members of the white working class can actually benefit from it (women); and, that in the great scheme of things, that this one issue alone might not outweigh all the other reasons that voting Dem might be to the advantage of the white working class. But sometimes perception is the reality and if these people perceived that they're getting screwed, that's going to show coming voting time.

I could also add immigration and the decline of the value of working class labor as a result of the immigration as another reason why the white working class (and, for that matter, the minority working class) might resent the Democrats, but Republicans bear concurrent responsibility for that problem (or perceived problem) as well.

[Annelise]

I will tell you that "single issues" make a big difference...even if the Republicans went back to being the party of true fiscal conservatism (which they ditched with George Bush and drunken sailor spending)and got rid of the wingnuts and evangelicals, I would hesitate to give them my vote unless they changed their position on abortion.

Sure, me too. But if I'm reading your language correctly you would consider it; it's conceivable. That's not a true single issue voter from my POV.

[Ocean of Notions]

For more examples of irrational biases at work, see this:

How was I being irrationally biased? A lot of people support a certain party just because. The same goes for some Democrats.