> Basically if you think people vote against their self interest, you don't understand the perspective from which they are voting. To be baffled by it is to fai

> Basically if you think people vote against their self interest, you don't understand the perspective from which they are voting. To be baffled by it is to fail to recognize your own ignorance. Didn't you just write that people can be motivated by ideology instead of self-interest? Yes, you can be altruistic (essentially the opposite of self-interested) and decide not to support universal health care, or basic income, or whatever, because you believe it will be a net loss for society. This line of reasoning is pretty common in conservative circles, in fact, and I didn't consider it worth mentioning. I suspect you are working with a definition of "self-interest" that is so broad as to lose most of it's meaning. I take it to mean the opposite of altruism: working to help others at the expense of your own material well-being (or, perhaps, just without seeing any personal gain). My point is that you need not be altruistic to support these policies (though it does seem to help), if you think enacting them will improve or defend your well-being.