Why do people often vote against their own interests?

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Why do people often vote against their own interests?

Because in most elections the only choices are Democrat or Republican.

Neither Democrat nor Republican represents my interests.

Cindy

So what is your personal plan to do something about the fact that your interests are not represented by the political parties?

There is no way that everyone's "personal interests" can be reflected in the election of lawmakers.

It would be nice/much more appropriate, I think, if those wishing to govern began campaigning on platforms that attempted to encompass what would be in the better interests of the a vast or near-vast majority of people vs. what is in the best interests of 50.001% it takes to get elected.

[cindykimlisa]

Re: Why do people often vote against their own interests?

Because in most elections the only choices are Democrat or Republican.

Neither Democrat nor Republican represents my interests.

Cindy

[Jim Nickerson]

Political scientist Dr David Runciman looks at why is there often such deep opposition to reforms that appear to be of obvious benefit to voters.
.
.
But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of health care reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.

In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%.
.
.
Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?

Why are they manning the barricades to defend insurance companies that routinely deny claims and cancel policies?
.

In his book The Political Brain, psychologist Drew Westen, an exasperated Democrat, tried to show why the Right often wins the argument even when the Left is confident that it has the facts on its side.

He uses the following exchange from the first presidential debate between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000 to illustrate the perils of trying to explain to voters what will make them better off:

Gore: "Under the governor's plan, if you kept the same fee for service that you have now under Medicare, your premiums would go up by between 18% and 47%, and that is the study of the Congressional plan that he's modelled his proposal on by the Medicare actuaries."

Bush: "Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers. I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. It's trying to scare people in the voting booth."

Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off.
.
.
Thomas Frank, the author of the best-selling book What's The Matter with Kansas, is an even more exasperated Democrat and he goes further than Mr Westen.

He believes that the voters' preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument has allowed the Republican Party to blind them to their own real interests.

The Republicans have learnt how to stoke up resentment against the patronising liberal elite, all those do-gooders who assume they know what poor people ought to be thinking.

Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest.
.
.
"You vote to strike a blow against elitism and you receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our life times, workers have been stripped of power, and CEOs are rewarded in a manner that is beyond imagining.

"It's like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy."

As Mr Frank sees it, authenticity has replaced economics as the driving force of modern politics. The authentic politicians are the ones who sound like they are speaking from the gut, not the cerebral cortex. Of course, they might be faking it, but it is no joke to say that in contemporary politics, if you can fake sincerity, you have got it made.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm

I've forgotten just what are the benefits that accrue to voters from having two political parties?

Where does one go to get individual/custom bumper stickers fabricated?

I'm thinking raja's "signature" would make an appropriate bumper sticker, of course without the "raja."

raja

Boycott Big Banks • Vote Out Incumbents