12 ms·

> 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 co

• 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/
      • DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
        But even so, the largest share were not the majority. The majority of the country doesn’t want the Tories to negotiate the withdrawal. But that’s what is going to happen.
        • leereeves 7y ago
          I don't think proportional representation would fix that. PR would probably lead to even more parties with each having fewer votes and none ever having a majority.
          • sokoloff 7y ago
            I think that would a feature at least as much as a bug. If the national government becomes focused on doing the most essential things and is forced to build broad-based, cross-party coalitions to accomplish that, it seems that causes the people to be better represented than if a majority party can cram through their point of view without worrying about trodding over those (temporarily) in the minority.
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  • burntoutfire 7y ago
    Isn't the majority of the UK media supporting the party that lost?
    • rjsw 7y ago
      No, most of the UK media supports the party that won.
    • DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
      There was a lot of negativity around Corbyn in the newspapers that tend to flip-flop - only the definite left-leaning papers (The Guardian, etc) maintain their support for Labour and the LibDems. My observation of the BBC's coverage was that while they at least didn't put a positive spin on the Tories, it felt like they were doubling-down on anti-Labour and anti-LibDem negativity. I still don't believe the BBC is in any way biased towards any particular political party, but I feel there's a feedback-loop somewhere in the media system. Once the meme "Corbyn is unelectable" becomes a meme and people don't stop to question it - or it becomes self-referential ("Corbyn is unelectable because the people believe he's unelectable") then we have a problem. (Disclaimer: I would not actually vote for Corbyn myself - just saying).
  • anongraddebt 7y ago
    Benedict Evans, though he lives in SV, would not have voted for Corbyn if he lived in the UK. Does Benedict Evans not know which political ideology is good for his own self-interest? How do you explain away people who didn't vote for Corbyn because... they would prefer a non-anti-semitic leader? I have a hunch. You might say, "Well these people were duped. He isn't IN FACT an anti-semite." But, now the goal posts have changed and the discussion moves to whether certain claims are true, not whatever is in someone's best interest. The thought that people you disagree with are simply fools because they don't know what is in their best self-interest, is not only arrogant, it's patently just not how the world works. Like always, it all comes down to whether your position or their position actually maps to reality. And if you think that you can't be wrong, or that it isn't likely that you get at least some things wrong, then your position is already hosed (not to mention lacks epistemological humility).
  • sokoloff 7y ago
    > It's empirically observable that a proportion of the electorate doesn't vote in its own best interests. I'm not sure that's true (that it's empirically observable without bias). The trouble comes from an assumption that by giving up X (that you value only a little) to achieve Y (that you value a lot), that those other people would be better off, when they simply value X a lot more than you do (or Y a lot less). When they consistently vote to prioritize X over Y, you empirically observe some outcomes, apply your own weights to each factor, and conclude they're acting against their own best interests and cite your evidence as empirical proof, ignoring the judgment you applied when determining the weights. I don't think people exhibiting this bias (unconscious or conscious) are intending to be condescending, but it comes across that way quite often. Some people prefer to live in a society where the government has minimal power/influence over citizens' daily life (X) while other people prefer to live in a society where government power and influence is strong and consistently exercised to protect the most vulnerable (Y). They're different choices.
  • alentist 7y ago
    No, you’re just upset they didn’t vote for your preferred party.
• traderjane 7y ago
  Is DaiPlusPlus is forcing things down people's throats? Is DaiPlusPlus' condescension running in torrents? Are you being condescending? If I say that consumers are being tricked by ad companies, am I being condescending? How dare I make judgments on so many people? And when American Christians say that Jesus Christ is the only true way and that Islam is a false path, and that all other ways are false pathways which lead to eternal hell, and is among the greatest of wrongs, is that condescending? Or mere spiritual reality? Other people aren't experiencing moral anxieties in judging you; instead they feel they have moral clarity. This is the majority stance of the land.
  • abnry 7y ago
    You are missing the point. If I say, "I support X" and you say, "I support not X," that's just a disagreement. If I say, "I support" and you say, "I support not X, and if you weren't so blind you'd think that too," that's being condescending because you are assuming that someone (a) has fundamentally the same values than you but is (b) too stupid to see it. The reality is that people can value something different than you (less government intervention, less restrictions on speech, lower taxes) for fundamental reasons different than yours, not because they basically agree with you and are too stupid to understand. This is different than merely arguing truth claims, because fundamentally political choice is a choice. There is no One True Way(TM) to govern and people prefer different things.
    • DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
      > The reality is that people can value something different than you (less government intervention, less restrictions on speech, lower taxes) Why do you assume we don't value those things? Isn't that _you_ being condescending now?
      • abnry 7y ago
        Why do you use the word "we"? I wasn't directing my comment to you. An assumption isn't necessarily condescending. I assumed I was talking to someone on the left side of politics and was giving examples for the sake of an argument. If those examples do not in fact work then I can just as well pick other ones.
• lizardking 7y ago
  The American political left would gain immensely and lose exactly nothing by being less condescending. The first line of argument they should abandon is telling people they are voting against their own interests. It’s remarkably insulting, and arrogantly presupposes you know know better what another person’s interests are.
  • zozbot234 7y ago
    I usually see the argument "you're voting against your own interests" from the free-market, libertarianish side. You may be right that it's often viewed as condescending, but I'm not sure what the alternative would be since the proper pursuit of 'enlightened self-interest' is the whole point of that sort of politics.
    • seibelj 7y ago
      The condescending part is that the left views poor people who vote for non-democrats as voting against their self-interest. No one knows what someone’s self-interest is except the person who is voting. Considering the US has only 2 major options on elections, there is a panoply of reasons why someone votes and merely saying “poor people who vote republican are brainwashed idiots” is what grates on people who believe everyone has their own agency regardless of their economic class.
      • DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
        > The condescending part is that the left views poor people who vote for non-democrats as voting against their self-interest. Is it condescending if it's true, though?
        • sokoloff 7y ago
          Condescension and correctness are largely orthogonal axes.
      • krapp 7y ago
        >the condescending part is that the left views poor people who vote for non-democrats as voting against their self-interest. And the right views poor people who vote for Democrats as lazy grifters just looking for a handout, naive fools in the pocket of globalist elites, or else not "real Americans" like themselves. It isn't only the left or Democrats which have a problem in this regard. The right/Republican end of the spectrum is fueled by its naked contempt for everyone outside their camp.
• harimau777 7y ago
  What approach would you suggest? What I mean is that any attempt to change policy/society/laws/government innately involves deciding that something would be good for society as a whole and then attempting to get laws put in place that force it to happen. Therefore, your post doesn't seem to be actionable since it basically boils down to "don't do anything".
  • Seanzie 7y ago
    I rarely come across such a terse, yet clear, argument why socialism requires force. But it is a false dichotomy, to conclude that the alternative is not to do anything.
    • harimau777 7y ago
      Like I said, what's your alternative? Also I think maybe I didn't explain what I was trying to say clearly. My point is that all political positions, not just socialism, amount to trying to force the laws to reflect how you feel society should operate.
• analog31 7y ago
  The opposite -- a presumption that people always vote in their own best interests -- is equally condescending because it's an expression that nobody can really believe. It's like everybody applauding and saying "good job" at the kindergarten music recital. In my view, evidence that people vote against their own interests is the massive industry that exists for the purpose of making that happen. The respectful middle ground, if there is one, is that how people vote relative to their own interests is a worthy topic and debate, but that the debate might make a few people uncomfortable.
  • rayiner 7y ago
    Your logical error is assuming that it’s so obvious what “vot[ing] against [one’s] own interests” means. Maybe a stable free market government with a strong cultural and religious framework is in everyone’s interest, and the “massive industry” exists to convince people of that fact?
    • faceplanted 7y ago
      This was like the archetype of a partisan argument. You two managed to go through why the sides don't like each other's worldview or the way it's expressed, and then stopped the second it came to discussing any real world issues. And I mean both of you as well, you could've given examples and data about why your system might be in anyone's interest but you didn't and it would've been the perfect time for him to reply with examples and data in favour of his, and neither of you even tried, it just stopped. It's fucking amazing.
      • deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      • skrebbel 7y ago
        > You two Who two? Every next comment was written by a different person.
        • faceplanted 7y ago
• jashmatthews 7y ago
  If you look at the 1997 Labour manifesto, which led to the UK doubling GDP from 97 to and 2007 and the 2019 Labour manifesto they’re very similar. If you ask people if Labour was good for the economy and would be good for the economy, you’ll largely get a negative response. Unfortunately it’s easy for people’s opinions to be shaped with zero basis in fact and when this happens it’s easy for them to vote against their own interest. This has little to do with a condescending left and much more to do with how well the Conservstives play and are supported by the media.
  • wolco 7y ago
    Side point. Just because a government is in power doesn't mean they are responsible for the economy doing well. Often the previous policies take time to take hold more so global trends are driving this. What happened after 2007 the housing crisis.. in part made by government policy spanning decades in part because of foreign influence through global markets.
    • jashmatthews 7y ago
      That’s true but widespread economic opinion is that the austerity policies have resulted in lower growth. Cuts started before 2010 and the effects are visible now. The IMF was critical of the policy as early as 2013 but the conservative government pushed on for idealogical reasons. There’s little reason to continue self harm.
      • Glide 7y ago
        I thought we’ve established that we’re all Keynesians now.
      • jtbayly 7y ago
        Unless the harm isn't harm but is rather the fabled pain without which comes no gain.
  • goatinaboat 7y ago
    If you look at the 1997 Labour manifesto, which led to the UK doubling GDP from 97 to and 2007 and the 2019 Labour manifesto they’re very similar The bits about nationalising everything were certainly very different so I don’t think this claim holds up to scrutiny. I also find it interesting that you stop at 2007. What happened in 2008 that might call into doubt Labour’s management of the economy?
• EliRivers 7y ago
  they don’t want someone like you deciding what’s good for them and forcing it down their throats But they're happy with other people deciding what's good for them; people who've decided that what's good for them is to be poorer and sicker? If they could be tricked into becoming richer and healthier, without realising they're doing it by voting for commie socialism or whatever scare label is in vogue, is that wrong? Is there some morality there, like life is an art project. Seriously; is that wrong? Is it more wrong to tell people what will make them richer and healthier, or to let them be poorer and sicker?
• ldoughty 7y ago
  I would make the same quoted statement, but mainly because of misinformation. I do NOT think people understand what their parties are telling them because both sides lie dramatically. Democrats do not present realistic plans with costs on their social programs, and Republican media and politicians typically say the exact opposite of what the real plan is. I used to love their smaller government push until they touted cutting public services to save 40 million as a huge victory for the budget while giving Lockheed et. al. A billion dollar contracts... So smaller government, sure, but NOT balancing a budget as it was claiming to try for. So if you subscribe to partizan political sources, both parties only feed you information that support their party line, and the facts are elsewhere, if they are even available. Presidents keep breaking all promises they make on the trail.
• formercoder 7y ago
  Or they voted one way for a long time, and things got worse, so now they vote a different way.
• tcbawo 7y ago
  Judgement of one's long term personal interests is dictated by whose projection of the future you believe. To many, the future trend seems obvious and it seems inconceivable that people would vote against your estimation of what the future will be. A little humility and open-mindedness would go a long way towards bridging the gap.
• danans 7y ago
  There's another reason people appear to vote against their best interests: the opportunity to hurt those they dislike or resent. That motivation can be especially strong when the party that you thought represented your economic interests turned out not to do that as much as you'd have liked.
• patcon 7y ago
  I feel like you're referring to the seam of high individualism in American culture. imho, that's the lie. And if we don't come to see that, it might be our collective undoing. There's a reason our highest form of punishment is to isolate. It's not our functional unit of existing. To truly isolate us from others is to punish us perhaps worse than death. So what makes people think the individual should be our highest functional unit of decision-making after millions of years evolving otherwise? This is something I wonder if western thought deserves to lose its crown over, if it can't course correct. Disclosure: civic technologist, community organizer, biochemist
  • AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    The reason we rest decision-making power in the individual is that it's democratizing. A community is not inherently a hierarchy. People can work together and achieve common goals without vesting ultimate power a Supreme Leader. It just means that you have to convince people that what you want the group to do is good, instead of ordering it by fiat. And if some people want to split off and do something different, diversity is a good thing too.
    • patcon 7y ago
      > The reason we rest decision-making power in the individual is that it's democratizing. I've studied in democratic reform, and work in civic tech space. There's a book called _Democracy for Realists_ which I highly recommend. It's a wonderful book, but it eviscerates most of what we understand colloquially about democracy. (Or at least did for me) You are walking around a piece of democracy that is entrenched in "folk democratic theory" -- things people talk about as being the basis of effective democracy. But in democratic theory, folk democracy appears to have much evidence against it, and very few serious academics advocate for it as an explanatory theory. It's telling is part of the glue perhaps, because systems must appear simple and understandable to its participants, or else it can be destabilized too easily :) the works for electoral systems too -- people need to feel like they understand it in order to trust it's outcomes, nevermind if first-past-the-post is truly best. The individual is very flawed, and democracy might work despite it's individual nature, not because of it. Political parties and identity groups outside the original structure of democracy perhaps stabilize a system that puts decision-making power into a very ineffective unit. (The individual) Anyhow, it's been awhile since I worked deeply on this stuff (and not as an academic myself), and I might be misspeaking some parts that an academic could correct me on, but I'm sure the general thrust of the above is true :)