5 ms·

Why People Vote Against Redistributive Policies That Would Benefit Them

5 points by anarbadalov 5y ago

holonomically 5y ago
> On balance, it appears that, when it comes to immigration, narratives are more powerful than hard facts in shaping people’s views. Narratives trump facts every time so expecting people to change their minds based on facts alone is a non-starter. All the conspiracy theories around the pandemic should be convincing evidence for anyone that thinks otherwise. Thousands of people are still dying every day and people continue to refuse vaccination even though the vaccine greatly improves one's chances of survival after contracting the virus.
stevenalowe 5y ago
Perhaps because “redistributive policies” is subconsciously understood as “theft”?
- holonomically 5y ago
  Only if you have bought into some ideology that elevates self-sovereign individuality above all other concerns. I don't know why you're getting downvoted, your question is valid. If people think "redistribution" is "theft" then they will definitely disagree with such policies. But the sensible interpretation of redistribution isn't theft, sane societies are composed of people that are willing to make sacrifices for the greater good and don't see such policies as theft.
  - stevenalowe 5y ago
    Respectfully disagree. As stated, their voter model "should" vote for more redistribution the further the individual is from the median/mean. Then they seem surprised that actual people don't behave that way. Duh. The researchers seem to have at least partially answered their own question though: "Trust in government (or lack thereof) also seems to be a critical element in driving support for redistribution." the hubris of the authors seems to preclude any examination of their own assumptions about what is "right" or "wrong", so they conclude that the rest of us just need more education/indoctrination
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - holonomically 5y ago
      You can disagree disrespectfully as well, I don't really mind.
missedthecue 5y ago
I think it's interesting how surprised people are that voters might cast their ballot on the basis of principle rather than personal profit
- holonomically 5y ago
  What principle precludes voting for universal healthcare?
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    There is a sizable portion of the voting population that does not appreciate ever expansive government.
    - holonomically 5y ago
      Are they opposed to ever expansive corporations like Amazon as well or is it that their principle only applies to what they think is the government? If the government rebranded itself as Gov. Inc. would these people stop opposing its perceived expansion? @moreoutput: Your reply is marked as dead so most people are not going to see it. If you have an argument then present it instead of projecting what I think about Amazon. I have no problems with Amazon.
      - moreoutput 5y ago
        I think you could get these people to join you in your distaste for expansive corporations by allowing Amazon to both take money from people without an exchange of goods and letting Amazon jail people who break its polices.
      - dane-pgp 5y ago
        They presumably focus on the fact that the government can use the threat of violence to take money from you against your will (imprisoning you if you don't pay your taxes, for example), whereas the methods of coercion available to a monopolistic company (or a cartel of companies) are much more indirect and seemingly avoidable.

5 points by anarbadalov 5y ago

> On balance, it appears that, when it comes to immigration, narratives are more powerful than hard facts in shaping people’s views. Narratives trump facts every time so expecting people to change their minds based on facts alone is a non-starter. All the conspiracy theories around the pandemic should be convincing evidence for anyone that thinks otherwise. Thousands of people are still dying every day and people continue to refuse vaccination even though the vaccine greatly improves one's chances of survival after contracting the virus.

stevenalowe 5y ago

Perhaps because “redistributive policies” is subconsciously understood as “theft”?

holonomically 5y ago
Only if you have bought into some ideology that elevates self-sovereign individuality above all other concerns. I don't know why you're getting downvoted, your question is valid. If people think "redistribution" is "theft" then they will definitely disagree with such policies. But the sensible interpretation of redistribution isn't theft, sane societies are composed of people that are willing to make sacrifices for the greater good and don't see such policies as theft.
- stevenalowe 5y ago
  Respectfully disagree. As stated, their voter model "should" vote for more redistribution the further the individual is from the median/mean. Then they seem surprised that actual people don't behave that way. Duh. The researchers seem to have at least partially answered their own question though: "Trust in government (or lack thereof) also seems to be a critical element in driving support for redistribution." the hubris of the authors seems to preclude any examination of their own assumptions about what is "right" or "wrong", so they conclude that the rest of us just need more education/indoctrination
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - holonomically 5y ago
    You can disagree disrespectfully as well, I don't really mind.

missedthecue 5y ago

I think it's interesting how surprised people are that voters might cast their ballot on the basis of principle rather than personal profit

holonomically 5y ago
What principle precludes voting for universal healthcare?
- missedthecue 5y ago
  There is a sizable portion of the voting population that does not appreciate ever expansive government.
  - holonomically 5y ago
    Are they opposed to ever expansive corporations like Amazon as well or is it that their principle only applies to what they think is the government? If the government rebranded itself as Gov. Inc. would these people stop opposing its perceived expansion? @moreoutput: Your reply is marked as dead so most people are not going to see it. If you have an argument then present it instead of projecting what I think about Amazon. I have no problems with Amazon.
    - moreoutput 5y ago
      I think you could get these people to join you in your distaste for expansive corporations by allowing Amazon to both take money from people without an exchange of goods and letting Amazon jail people who break its polices.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      They presumably focus on the fact that the government can use the threat of violence to take money from you against your will (imprisoning you if you don't pay your taxes, for example), whereas the methods of coercion available to a monopolistic company (or a cartel of companies) are much more indirect and seemingly avoidable.