Why do people often vote against their own interests?

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm

The Republicans' shock victory in the election for the US Senate seat in Massachusetts meant the Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate. This makes it even harder for the Obama administration to get healthcare reform passed in the US.
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.
Last year, in a series of \"town-hall meetings\" across the country, Americans got the chance to debate President Obama's proposed healthcare reforms.
What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence.
Polling evidence suggests that the numbers who think the reforms go too far are nearly matched by those who think they do not go far enough.
But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare 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%.
Anger
Instead, to many of those who lose out under the existing system, reform still seems like the ultimate betrayal.
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?
It might be tempting to put the whole thing down to what the historian Richard Hofstadter back in the 1960s called \"the paranoid style\" of American politics, in which God, guns and race get mixed into a toxic stew of resentment at anything coming out of Washington.
But that would be a mistake.

If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them.
They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best.
There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots.
As the saying goes, in politics, when you are explaining, you are losing. And that makes anything as complex or as messy as healthcare reform a very hard sell.
Stories not facts
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.
For Mr Westen, stories always trump statistics, which means the politician with the best stories is going to win: \"One of the fallacies that politicians often have on the Left is that things are obvious, when they are not obvious.
\"Obama's administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans' Depression, caused by the Bush administration's ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him.\"
Reverse revolution
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.

Thomas Frank says that whatever disadvantaged Americans think they are voting for, they get something quite different:
\"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.
And the ultimate sin in modern politics is appearing to take the voters for granted.
This is a culture war but it is not simply being driven by differences over abortion, or religion, or patriotism. And it is not simply Red states vs. Blue states any more. It is a war on the entire political culture, on the arrogance of politicians, on their slipperiness and lack of principle, on their endless deal making and compromises.
And when the politicians say to the people protesting: 'But we're doing this for you', that just makes it worse. In fact, that seems to be what makes them angriest of all.

People make me sad...
 
S

Soliloquy

Yeah, the article seems to pretend that it's fairly cut-and-dry what's in the people's best interest. I'd argue otherwise.
 
Also you can consider how Mass. already has universal health care coverage and you realize that the article is flat out dead wrong in this situation. They didn't vote against their interest because they are already covered. In the end they decided not to vote for a crappy crappy candidate who ran such a sloppy ill put together campaign that her campaign just went silent for weeks on end.
 
Also you can consider how Mass. already has universal health care coverage and you realize that the article is flat out dead wrong in this situation. They didn't vote against their interest because they are already covered. In the end they decided not to vote for a crappy crappy candidate who ran such a sloppy ill put together campaign that her campaign just went silent for weeks on end.
Exactly. This point also shows how silly the claim of Mass. being a mandate against the healthcare plan really is.
 
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.
I don't agree with the whole article, but this bit makes sense to me. Republican party is certainly better at working people than the Democratic party.
 
Wow, what a terrible article.
What do you disagree with?[/QUOTE]

Don't get me wrong, it's got some good stuff in it that I agree with but it's just a smarmy smear piece. Hell, Rush Limbaugh makes some good points but it doesn't mean I'm going to listen to him if I want a good objective view.
 
Obama's administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans' Depression, caused by the Bush administration's ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him.
I thought he has always blamed the economic problems on Bush. I don't think people blame him for the economic problems, but for what he's doing to fix it.

I think this also comes with the increasing amount of people who consider themselves independent. Instead of trying to vote in your party, it now becomes voting out a party you don't like. But really, the Mass election was more about the Democrats picking their butts expecting a win than it was anything else.
 
Obama's administration made a tremendous mistake by not immediately branding the economic collapse that we had just had as the Republicans' Depression, caused by the Bush administration's ideology of unregulated greed. The result is that now people blame him.
I thought he has always blamed the economic problems on Bush. I don't think people blame him for the economic problems, but for what he's doing to fix it.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I don't think the dems problem is NOT saying everything is Bush's fault... Even so, the fact is the reason the dems haven't gained ground with some silly label like the above is because it's a very complicated problem, our economic woes. It's far to simplistic and naive to say , "Party A did it" and most of the american people seem to understand that, hence attempts by both sides failing.
 
S

Soliloquy

I think that the main problem for Obama is the way he ran his campaign. Intentionally or unintentionally, he created this popular image for himself as having some kind of surefire solution to the nation's economic woes. And that's why people voted for him. (Well, that and the fact that Sarah Palin has the IQ of two chimpanzees tied together.)

When things only got worse after Obama came into office, people began to see the instant magical recovery that they voted for as nothing but a lie, and so they turned against him.

Personally, I think that Obama's "I will fix everything immediately" image during the election was intentional, so the people turning against him is well-deserved.
 
K

Kitty Sinatra

To be fair, those'd have to be some pretty below-average chimps.
Well they did somehow manage to get themselves tied together. That's not very bright . . .






. . . ah crap. Now I'm picturing Sarah Palin dressed in leather with a whip. and it turns me on.
 
Actually the biggest problem with the article is that the reason why health care etc was stalled was the Democrats, seeing how they had a supermajority already.

But it does make a good point about how people tend to respond better to the emotional appeal then actual facts (look at that Bush quote, i for one wouldn't want someone who said that run a hotdog stand, let alone a country).

And of course Massachusetts has about the crappy dem candidate, as one can easily see by the fact that at the start she was ahead by plenty in the polls...

Yeah, the article seems to pretend that it's fairly cut-and-dry what's in the people's best interest. I'd argue otherwise.
Yeah, who the hell wants not to have to go into debt over health bills...

I think that the main problem for Obama is the way he ran his campaign. Intentionally or unintentionally, he created this popular image for himself as having some kind of surefire solution to the nation's economic woes. And that's why people voted for him. (Well, that and the fact that Sarah Palin has the IQ of two chimpanzees tied together.)

When things only got worse after Obama came into office, people began to see the instant magical recovery that they voted for as nothing but a lie, and so they turned against him.

Personally, I think that Obama's "I will fix everything immediately" image during the election was intentional, so the people turning against him is well-deserved.
View attachment 286
 

Attachments

S

Soliloquy

Actually the biggest problem with the article is that the reason why health care etc was stalled was the Democrats, seeing how they had a supermajority already.

But it does make a good point about how people tend to respond better to the emotional appeal then actual facts (look at that Bush quote, i for one wouldn't want someone who said that run a hotdog stand, let alone a country).

And of course Massachusetts has about the crappy dem candidate, as one can easily see by the fact that at the start she was ahead by plenty in the polls...

Yeah, the article seems to pretend that it's fairly cut-and-dry what's in the people's best interest. I'd argue otherwise.
Yeah, who the hell wants not to have to go into debt over health bills...
Ah, yes, I forgot that a massive experimental overhaul of the nation's Healthcare system could have no other possible results than to solve every problem for everyone, ever.

I think that the main problem for Obama is the way he ran his campaign. Intentionally or unintentionally, he created this popular image for himself as having some kind of surefire solution to the nation's economic woes. And that's why people voted for him. (Well, that and the fact that Sarah Palin has the IQ of two chimpanzees tied together.)

When things only got worse after Obama came into office, people began to see the instant magical recovery that they voted for as nothing but a lie, and so they turned against him.

Personally, I think that Obama's \\"I will fix everything immediately\\" image during the election was intentional, so the people turning against him is well-deserved.
View attachment 286
You forget, Obama's not magic.
 
K

Kitty Sinatra

Why do people often vote against their own interests?
I don't know about everyone else but for me, voting against my own interests gets me horny.

I'm a bit of masochist, I suppose.
 
C

Chibibar

Well. I guess because Government health insurance (military one) is not so good.

This is from my friends who serve and still use military insurance (veteran and stuff) It is tough to see a doctor, heck, a friend of mine need some require med but STILL requires to see a specialist BUT can't see a specialist before seeing general physicians. It usually takes him about 2-3 months to get a refill (I can't remember what med but I remember he complains every 6 months for it) it is a pain in the butt.

Now...... that is existing government run health insurance for Vet. I don't have personal experience on that, but if my friend is having that kind of issue while I can go to a specialist without having to see general physician because my insurance allows me to (25$ to see a specialist and 20$ for a primary care) and get my meds (if I need any) in less than 1 week. now that is a big difference.

It seems that when it comes to benefits (Medicade is another government run health insurance for seniors... let not even go there when my in-law is having issues to get stuff done for her and she is disable via medicade) Social Security - another government run benefits that has exist for YEARS and now in trouble.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
That article represents a great many false premises and failures of understanding. But hey, nannystate reporter can't understand why Americans don't want to be a nannystate too.

Also, remember, the bill in its latest form actually would INCREASE medical costs, not decrease, and wouldn't even succeed in covering all the uncovered. Alien's falling into the trap that so many have lately - they're attaching their own wishful thinking and intentions to a bill that actually had very little to do with decreasing medical costs and everything to do with increasing government control over the private sector and increasing its intrusiveness into the lives of private citizens.
 
C

Chibibar

before there were suggestion of expanding medicare, I don't know why they just expand that system to include people who can't afford it (that is what it boils down to) Of course the BIG thing that government won't touch is legal stuff like ability to file suit or limit them. I personally think that would be a BIG step.
 
Well. I guess because Government health insurance (military one) is not so good.

This is from my friends who serve and still use military insurance (veteran and stuff) It is tough to see a doctor, heck, a friend of mine need some require med but STILL requires to see a specialist BUT can't see a specialist before seeing general physicians.
Almost all insurance has this requirement, not just VA insurance. (Source: Principles of Healthcare Reimbursement, Second Edition, Casto, B Anne; Layman, Elizabeth, pp 49-65)

I should add that this requirement is added to keep costs down. Specialist visits are expensive and require resources that are limited. If you want to know more about healthcare costs, I'm happy to share what I do know. (I'm studying healthcare reimbursement for a career, almost finished with the program).
 
C

Chibibar

Well. I guess because Government health insurance (military one) is not so good.

This is from my friends who serve and still use military insurance (veteran and stuff) It is tough to see a doctor, heck, a friend of mine need some require med but STILL requires to see a specialist BUT can't see a specialist before seeing general physicians.
Almost all insurance has this requirement, not just VA insurance. (Source: Principles of Healthcare Reimbursement, Second Edition, Casto, B Anne; Layman, Elizabeth, pp 49-65)

I should add that this requirement is added to keep costs down. Specialist visits are expensive and require resources that are limited. If you want to know more about healthcare costs, I'm happy to share what I do know. (I'm studying healthcare reimbursement for a career, almost finished with the program).[/QUOTE]

True, but I can get visit of my doctor (which is more open than VA version) and see a specialist.

Now in terms of refilling prescription, I mean come on. I think it was blood pressure medicine. He has been taking the same thing and getting 2 physical each year and blood work. (I think that is right I gotta ask next time I see him). Of course a friend of mine is an optometrist for the Navy. He said it took 3 months to get standard ISSUE glasses :( bleh. I can get mine in less than a week with my insurance.
 
Actually the biggest problem with the article is that the reason why health care etc was stalled was the Democrats, seeing how they had a supermajority already.

But it does make a good point about how people tend to respond better to the emotional appeal then actual facts (look at that Bush quote, i for one wouldn't want someone who said that run a hotdog stand, let alone a country).

And of course Massachusetts has about the crappy dem candidate, as one can easily see by the fact that at the start she was ahead by plenty in the polls...

Yeah, the article seems to pretend that it's fairly cut-and-dry what's in the people's best interest. I'd argue otherwise.
Yeah, who the hell wants not to have to go into debt over health bills...
Ah, yes, I forgot that a massive experimental overhaul of the nation's Healthcare system could have no other possible results than to solve every problem for everyone, ever.[/QUOTE]

Because doing nothing is better then the possibility of failure...

I think that the main problem for Obama is the way he ran his campaign. Intentionally or unintentionally, he created this popular image for himself as having some kind of surefire solution to the nation's economic woes. And that's why people voted for him. (Well, that and the fact that Sarah Palin has the IQ of two chimpanzees tied together.)

When things only got worse after Obama came into office, people began to see the instant magical recovery that they voted for as nothing but a lie, and so they turned against him.

Personally, I think that Obama's \\\"I will fix everything immediately\\\" image during the election was intentional, so the people turning against him is well-deserved.
View attachment 286
You forget, Obama's not magic.[/QUOTE]

I believe that was kinda the joke...
 
S

Soliloquy

Actually the biggest problem with the article is that the reason why health care etc was stalled was the Democrats, seeing how they had a supermajority already.

I think that the main problem for Obama is the way he ran his campaign. Intentionally or unintentionally, he created this popular image for himself as having some kind of surefire solution to the nation's economic woes. And that's why people voted for him. (Well, that and the fact that Sarah Palin has the IQ of two chimpanzees tied together.)

When things only got worse after Obama came into office, people began to see the instant magical recovery that they voted for as nothing but a lie, and so they turned against him.

Personally, I think that Obama's \\\\"I will fix everything immediately\\\\" image during the election was intentional, so the people turning against him is well-deserved.
View attachment 286
You forget, Obama's not magic.[/QUOTE]

I believe that was kinda the joke...[/QUOTE]

That's why I responded with a joke...
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Because doing nothing is better then the possibility of failure...
More like doing nothing is better than the almost complete guarantee of failure along with hundreds of billions in pork, payoffs and slush.[/QUOTE]

And i'm sure you didn't bother with the numbers because math is fuzzy... :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

You've made nothing but snarky unsubstantiated assertions and then start heaving bricks from your glass porch? You make me laugh.

It's painfully obvious however. We've even got an american example to look at - Massachusetts, where the election in question just happened.

A 2008 analysis by Kaiser Permanente's Patricia Lynch published by Health Affairs noted that in addition to Washington and New York, the individual insurance markets in Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Vermont \"deteriorated\" after the enactment of guaranteed issue. Individual insurance became significantly more expensive and there was no significant decrease in the number of uninsured.
All to address a largely ficticious number. Manufactured crisis, poisonous solution. NOW which side's math is fuzzy?
 
S

Soliloquy

Oh, and:

Actually the biggest problem with the article is that the reason why health care etc was stalled was the Democrats, seeing how they had a supermajority already.

But it does make a good point about how people tend to respond better to the emotional appeal then actual facts (look at that Bush quote, i for one wouldn't want someone who said that run a hotdog stand, let alone a country).

And of course Massachusetts has about the crappy dem candidate, as one can easily see by the fact that at the start she was ahead by plenty in the polls...

Yeah, the article seems to pretend that it's fairly cut-and-dry what's in the people's best interest. I'd argue otherwise.
Yeah, who the hell wants not to have to go into debt over health bills...
Ah, yes, I forgot that a massive experimental overhaul of the nation's Healthcare system could have no other possible results than to solve every problem for everyone, ever.[/QUOTE]

Because doing nothing is better then the possibility of failure...
[/quote]

I agree that something should be done about healthcare, but saying that, by proxy, this massive experiment needs to be passed is fallacy.

A specific fallacy called the Politician's Syllogism, in fact.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I agree that something needs to be done about healthcare, but saying that, by proxy, this massive experiment needs to be passed is fallacy.

A specific fallacy called the Politician's Syllogism, in fact.
Exactly. The same fallacy that got us multiple useless bailouts which completely failed to avert economic disaster or kickstart recovery. "We've got to do something NOW NOW NOW" got us trillions further into the hole and worsened unemployment past 10%.
 
C

Chibibar

I agree that something needs to be done about healthcare, but saying that, by proxy, this massive experiment needs to be passed is fallacy.

A specific fallacy called the Politician's Syllogism, in fact.
Exactly. The same fallacy that got us multiple useless bailouts which completely failed to avert economic disaster or kickstart recovery. "We've got to do something NOW NOW NOW" got us trillions further into the hole and worsened unemployment past 10%.[/QUOTE]

bingo. I think a lot of the bailout is a mistake (just my opinion) We learn a lot of things in economic and things happen for a reason and usually fix itself (the whole balance thing) of course it "could be worst" but that is the whole point of economic isn't it? A quick fix like the government is trying to do is just a bandaid and prolong the events (again my opinion from what I learn from my economic class)

Of course some would say, it could cost massive failure and closure, but then some other bank will pick up the slacks. I know that mortgage get traded all the time. Heck, my home loan was already sold off to another bank before I made my first payment.

Also the bailout money was so quick and messy, congress didn't even think (I assume) on using tax payer money on bonus that was promise on contract.
 
Ok, first off, anyone who believed the bailouts where meant to make the crisis go away as if by bloody magic, pls stop talking...especially since most economies are in recovery (jobless as it may be).

Actually here, have some perspective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Law_(economist) The economic collapse in France lead to happy guillotine time, not something you can calculate using anything you learn in any economics class (they don't even tell you not to offer starving people rotten cake).

The bonuses thing was a retarded oversight (and by oversight i mean they didn't care or where even colluding with the companies). Just like not breaking up the "too big to fail" banks now that they can... but hey, the free market has spoken, and it says money pwns (poor Adam Smith, he did reiterate over and over that the invisible hand only works if everyone plays fair).

That's why I responded with a joke...
Then maybe you should have used some puns or something... make it sound less dry and maybe it wouldn't be taken as a rebuttal that also includes a funny video.

I agree that something should be done about healthcare, but saying that, by proxy, this massive experiment needs to be passed is fallacy.

A specific fallacy called the Politician's Syllogism, in fact.
Wow, it's almost like i chose the word nothing on purpose... crazy, right?

But show me an alternative that doesn't amount to "let the market deal with it, it worked so well so far" and i'll believe you.

@GB

How many of those "not a citizen" are actually illegals as opposed to green card workers, that actually pay taxes?!

Also, is it just me or are some of those articles saying that if people get government health care they'd start leaving private ones (which leads them to charge more)?! Or is that individual insurance vs group insurance?!

Also, the fuzzy math comment was about a quote from Bush up on the page, and he was talking about Gore, so it was already about the democrats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top