7 ms·

Government is to govern. Government in most countries is driven by democratic mandates. Democratic mandates are set by influencers. The US’ key influencers are

Government is to govern. Government in most countries is driven by democratic mandates. Democratic mandates are set by influencers. The US’ key influencers are largely regressive and dishonest - and convince people to either not vote - or to vote against their personal best interests[1]. The US government does not currently have a democratic mandate to operate as the social welfare state. Consequently hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of people are immorally (by my own standards) disadvantaged and with no means or realistic opportunity to better themselves. So if a private company (or shareholders-forbid: a publicly traded company)’s leadership feels a moral obligation to help those left behind by the state - more power to them. Until the US truly embraces the “for the people” part of the “by the people, of the people, for the people” part of their unofficial motto it really is up to private entities to make-up the difference. [1] UPDATE: To clarify - I don't mean that I somehow know what's in someone else's best interests - because I don't - nor their exact reasons for voting for a particular party or candidate - but I mean that it's still possible to _objectively_ say that many people vote for ideological or sentimental reasons that appeal to them (which is part of democracy!) with - or without - having done (for example) a spreadsheet comparisons of how each candidate's manifesto politics would affect their cost of living, quality of living, economic expectations, and so on. I can respect someone voting against their interests for ideological or moral reasons - provided it's done with informed consent. I'm not convinced that most- or even a plurality - of GOP voters in recent US elections sat down and made a spreadsheet and said "yup - I'm okay with rising the cost of my individual health insurance provided it means I have the choice to refuse healthcare coverage" (and that is not a misrepresentation of the ACA and its opponents' stated positions). So by all means - vote against your own interests - provided you do it with informed consent - otherwise you _really_ are voting against your own interests.

jtbayly 7y ago
> convince people to either not vote - or to vote against their personal best interests. I’ve seen this on HN several times, and it always cracks me up. The condescension isn't dripping. It’s running in torrents. You think the reason they won’t vote the way you want is because they don’t know what’s good for themselves. You might want to consider an alternate: they don’t want someone like you deciding what’s good for them and forcing it down their throats.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  The UK has just had an election where many people voted for the party which has been in power for nearly ten years and been an utter disaster. Because they want change. Condescension has nothing to do with it. It's empirically observable that a proportion of the electorate doesn't vote in its own best interests. It's also empirically observable there's an entire industry of media outlets, think-tanks, journalists, bloggers, TV presenters, radio commenters, online commenters, and other influencers which is paid huge sums every year to make sure this doesn't change.
  - DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
    The 2019 election - just like the previous 3, subverted the popular vote by way of First Past the Post. Nationally, the pro-leave side only secured a minority of the vote. And unfortunately a major problem with proportional representation is there's no one single best way to achieve PR - any campaign to achieve PR would be stymied by splitting the pro-PR faction between STV and IRV, for example.
    - learnstats2 7y ago
      Plenty of other countries have managed to get PR. So, this is a hypothetical objection only.
    - leereeves 7y ago
      > The 2019 election - just like the previous 3, subverted the popular vote by way of First Past the Post. Nationally, the pro-leave side only secured a minority of the vote. Labour's official position is to negotiate a deal and then hold a final referendum. [1] So there were three positions in the election (leave, remain, vote again) and leave won the largest share of the popular vote. 1:https://labour.org.uk/page/labour-brexit-plan/ https://labour.org.uk/page/labour-brexit-plan/
TulliusCicero 7y ago
If they'd like to, sure; but they don't have to, and we shouldn't be relying on them to. > Democratic mandates are set by influencers. This is a cop out: the electorate is still responsible for the politicians it puts in power. Don't let people off the hook for supporting terrible policies.
- DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
  > This is a cop out: the electorate is still responsible for the politicians it puts in power. I disagree. After reading about famous propagandists from the past century I'm just depressed that it's so easy to manipulate enough of the public to vote a particular way. Yes, it's the people's fault - but the people are fallable and _predictable_ enough to be played like a puppet. If someone is an idiot and is convinced into doing something criminal even when they know it's wrong, that still doesn't get the person who tricked them into doing it off-the-hook - in serious crimes that's called aiding-and-abetting.
  - nothrabannosir 7y ago
    Both can be true (and probably are). Yes, modern propaganda is odious, but also yes, don’t let us off the hook. At least while we feel responsible for our elections, we have some modicum of interest in them. I’ve seen countries where they’ve lost hope, who are democratic in name only. It’s not pretty.
    - vageli 7y ago
      > I’ve seen countries where they’ve lost hope, who are democratic in name only. It’s not pretty. I'm curious about the list of countries that are democratic in name only (and also wondering about the time frames involved), would you elaborate?
      - DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
        The Democratic People’s Public of North Korea comes to mind.
ralusek 7y ago
When people vote in their personal best interests, that is a signal for a dying society. Imagine if you had a vote at halftime of a sports game and let people vote on what the rules should be. Ideally, they would vote out things like corrupt refs, and make adjustments to rules that have proven to greatly advantage people in a game-breaking way. But if they start voting in such a manner that they are reallocating points in order to personally benefit their team, the democracy is over, that's no longer a society with social cohesion voting on principle for the sake of the game. Direct democracy populism where people are maximizing personal return should not be considered the standard that we aspire to. I'm not making a case for right or left wing politics, I'm just making a case against the idea that if people vote in such a manner that they will not personally benefit, particularly in the short run, that they are necessarily idiots that have been tricked into voting against their best interests.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  I regret that I have but one upvote to give for this.
- formercoder 7y ago
  Ben Franklin said the best argument against democracy is five minutes with the average voter.
cgriswald 7y ago
Voters don't need your respect. They don't have to justify their votes to you. Many people who you might think are 'voting against their best interest' have a different view of the trade offs than you and actually are voting in their best interests. Or they are voting in their long term best interests in spite of it being against their short term best interests. Or they are voting their principles regardless of the impact on their bottom line. Most voters are uninformed about most issues. It's effectively impossible to be informed about every issue. There are simply too many issues. Calling out GOP voters on ACA specifically just shows your partisanship. > and that is not a misrepresentation of the ACA and its opponents' stated positions If I was feeling generous, which I am not, I would say this is accurate but incredibly imprecise. In the context of this thread, it's simply flame bait.
koboll 7y ago
>it's still possible to _objectively_ say that many people vote for ideological or sentimental reasons that appeal to them (which is part of democracy!) with - or without - having done (for example) a spreadsheet comparisons of how each candidate's manifesto politics would affect their cost of living, quality of living, economic expectations, and so on. I disagree. I'd wager most voters do perform such an analysis, albeit in their heads. People generally vote for Republicans because they want lower taxes. People generally vote for Democrats because they want better-funded government services. Most voting is really that simple -- people want their lives to cost less, and they vote for the party they think is more likely to deliver that. The ideological trappings are largely post-hoc justifications for why this self-interest is virtuous.

jtbayly 7y ago

> convince people to either not vote - or to vote against their personal best interests. I’ve seen this on HN several times, and it always cracks me up. The condescension isn't dripping. It’s running in torrents. You think the reason they won’t vote the way you want is because they don’t know what’s good for themselves. You might want to consider an alternate: they don’t want someone like you deciding what’s good for them and forcing it down their throats.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
The UK has just had an election where many people voted for the party which has been in power for nearly ten years and been an utter disaster. Because they want change. Condescension has nothing to do with it. It's empirically observable that a proportion of the electorate doesn't vote in its own best interests. It's also empirically observable there's an entire industry of media outlets, think-tanks, journalists, bloggers, TV presenters, radio commenters, online commenters, and other influencers which is paid huge sums every year to make sure this doesn't change.
- DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
  The 2019 election - just like the previous 3, subverted the popular vote by way of First Past the Post. Nationally, the pro-leave side only secured a minority of the vote. And unfortunately a major problem with proportional representation is there's no one single best way to achieve PR - any campaign to achieve PR would be stymied by splitting the pro-PR faction between STV and IRV, for example.
  - learnstats2 7y ago
    Plenty of other countries have managed to get PR. So, this is a hypothetical objection only.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    > The 2019 election - just like the previous 3, subverted the popular vote by way of First Past the Post. Nationally, the pro-leave side only secured a minority of the vote. Labour's official position is to negotiate a deal and then hold a final referendum. [1] So there were three positions in the election (leave, remain, vote again) and leave won the largest share of the popular vote. 1:https://labour.org.uk/page/labour-brexit-plan/ https://labour.org.uk/page/labour-brexit-plan/

TulliusCicero 7y ago

If they'd like to, sure; but they don't have to, and we shouldn't be relying on them to. > Democratic mandates are set by influencers. This is a cop out: the electorate is still responsible for the politicians it puts in power. Don't let people off the hook for supporting terrible policies.

DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
> This is a cop out: the electorate is still responsible for the politicians it puts in power. I disagree. After reading about famous propagandists from the past century I'm just depressed that it's so easy to manipulate enough of the public to vote a particular way. Yes, it's the people's fault - but the people are fallable and _predictable_ enough to be played like a puppet. If someone is an idiot and is convinced into doing something criminal even when they know it's wrong, that still doesn't get the person who tricked them into doing it off-the-hook - in serious crimes that's called aiding-and-abetting.
- nothrabannosir 7y ago
  Both can be true (and probably are). Yes, modern propaganda is odious, but also yes, don’t let us off the hook. At least while we feel responsible for our elections, we have some modicum of interest in them. I’ve seen countries where they’ve lost hope, who are democratic in name only. It’s not pretty.
  - vageli 7y ago
    > I’ve seen countries where they’ve lost hope, who are democratic in name only. It’s not pretty. I'm curious about the list of countries that are democratic in name only (and also wondering about the time frames involved), would you elaborate?
    - DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
      The Democratic People’s Public of North Korea comes to mind.

ralusek 7y ago

When people vote in their personal best interests, that is a signal for a dying society. Imagine if you had a vote at halftime of a sports game and let people vote on what the rules should be. Ideally, they would vote out things like corrupt refs, and make adjustments to rules that have proven to greatly advantage people in a game-breaking way. But if they start voting in such a manner that they are reallocating points in order to personally benefit their team, the democracy is over, that's no longer a society with social cohesion voting on principle for the sake of the game. Direct democracy populism where people are maximizing personal return should not be considered the standard that we aspire to. I'm not making a case for right or left wing politics, I'm just making a case against the idea that if people vote in such a manner that they will not personally benefit, particularly in the short run, that they are necessarily idiots that have been tricked into voting against their best interests.

sokoloff 7y ago
I regret that I have but one upvote to give for this.
formercoder 7y ago
Ben Franklin said the best argument against democracy is five minutes with the average voter.

cgriswald 7y ago

Voters don't need your respect. They don't have to justify their votes to you. Many people who you might think are 'voting against their best interest' have a different view of the trade offs than you and actually are voting in their best interests. Or they are voting in their long term best interests in spite of it being against their short term best interests. Or they are voting their principles regardless of the impact on their bottom line. Most voters are uninformed about most issues. It's effectively impossible to be informed about every issue. There are simply too many issues. Calling out GOP voters on ACA specifically just shows your partisanship. > and that is not a misrepresentation of the ACA and its opponents' stated positions If I was feeling generous, which I am not, I would say this is accurate but incredibly imprecise. In the context of this thread, it's simply flame bait.

koboll 7y ago

>it's still possible to _objectively_ say that many people vote for ideological or sentimental reasons that appeal to them (which is part of democracy!) with - or without - having done (for example) a spreadsheet comparisons of how each candidate's manifesto politics would affect their cost of living, quality of living, economic expectations, and so on. I disagree. I'd wager most voters do perform such an analysis, albeit in their heads. People generally vote for Republicans because they want lower taxes. People generally vote for Democrats because they want better-funded government services. Most voting is really that simple -- people want their lives to cost less, and they vote for the party they think is more likely to deliver that. The ideological trappings are largely post-hoc justifications for why this self-interest is virtuous.