6 ms·

Beyond economic self-interest, maybe particularly in the USA it is possible to vote for people who can actively undermine your vote in the future. Pretty long

Beyond economic self-interest, maybe particularly in the USA it is possible to vote for people who can actively undermine your vote in the future. Pretty long history in the US of gerrymandering, ID voter laws and reducing voting stations that pretty directly limit people's ability to vote. I think anger just blocks rational thought.

fastball 2y ago
I don't think those examples make any sense in the context of voting for self-interest. - gerrymandering: voting for someone that will gerrymander is once again voting for your own interests (this time at the expense of democratic values). If the prone-to-gerrymander candidate you are voting for does in fact gerrymander, it is likely to be in favor of that political party (which is the one you voted for). - Voter ID: I think everyone who wants stronger voter ID laws and is voting for them is not particularly worried about not having an ID when it comes time to vote in the next election. - Reducing voting stations is an interesting one, but again I think most of the people who would vote for a party that reduces voting stations are not worried about access to them (either because they can easily take time off to vote, they are quite mobile, or because they are happy with mail-in-ballots). So I think you are helping make my point, but in the opposite direction of how you meant – those are a bunch of examples of people voting selfishly in a way that could hurt democracy. I want people that would vote for such things to vote against their own self-interest, and instead vote for what is best for the health of our democratic republic.
- 3vidence 2y ago
  In this case I mean the people adversely affected by the above policies can still find themselves voting for them. The voterID one for example, people who can vote one election that have otherwise out of date ID will find themselves unable to vote in the next election. VoterID can be especially tricky in the US due to not having a Nation ID or a federally run election see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_Uni... for a good summary. I would imagine a pretty "rational" perspective would be to be in favor of policies that allow you to vote again in the future (just in general).
  - fastball 2y ago
    Right, I still don't think that is true. The people voting for Voter ID are not struggling to get a new ID when their old one expires. Yes, there is no "federal ID" (besides passports and passport cards), but if you've had an ID before, it is not difficult to get a new one in any US state.
    - 3vidence 2y ago
      I think we have reached a terminus. But I do want to say I appreciate your respectful and straightforward messaging. What I've described above isn't a theoretical problem, it is an actual occurring issue that has happened time after time. I don't want to say it's "privileged" but I think you are personally down playing the difficulty these issues raised on specific groups. If you read the Wikipedia article you will see that minority groups are significantly less likely to have up to date state IDs. And respectfully anyone without a permanent address can also have a very hard time getting ID. That point I'm making is that people in these groups will still vote for policies that directly negatively impact their ability to participate in democracy. Not a strawman argument, based on actual voter data. It could be a part of the larger problem that a decreasing percentage of Americans are even voting at all.
      - fastball 2y ago
        That is the point that you're making, but you kinda need to back it up. I have seen little evidence that people voting for voter ID laws struggle to get IDs, just evidence that some people struggle.
throw0101a 2y ago
> Beyond economic self-interest, maybe particularly in the USA it is possible to vote for people who can actively undermine your vote in the future. E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP

fastball 2y ago

I don't think those examples make any sense in the context of voting for self-interest. - gerrymandering: voting for someone that will gerrymander is once again voting for your own interests (this time at the expense of democratic values). If the prone-to-gerrymander candidate you are voting for does in fact gerrymander, it is likely to be in favor of that political party (which is the one you voted for). - Voter ID: I think everyone who wants stronger voter ID laws and is voting for them is not particularly worried about not having an ID when it comes time to vote in the next election. - Reducing voting stations is an interesting one, but again I think most of the people who would vote for a party that reduces voting stations are not worried about access to them (either because they can easily take time off to vote, they are quite mobile, or because they are happy with mail-in-ballots). So I think you are helping make my point, but in the opposite direction of how you meant – those are a bunch of examples of people voting selfishly in a way that could hurt democracy. I want people that would vote for such things to vote against their own self-interest, and instead vote for what is best for the health of our democratic republic.

3vidence 2y ago
In this case I mean the people adversely affected by the above policies can still find themselves voting for them. The voterID one for example, people who can vote one election that have otherwise out of date ID will find themselves unable to vote in the next election. VoterID can be especially tricky in the US due to not having a Nation ID or a federally run election see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_Uni... for a good summary. I would imagine a pretty "rational" perspective would be to be in favor of policies that allow you to vote again in the future (just in general).
- fastball 2y ago
  Right, I still don't think that is true. The people voting for Voter ID are not struggling to get a new ID when their old one expires. Yes, there is no "federal ID" (besides passports and passport cards), but if you've had an ID before, it is not difficult to get a new one in any US state.
  - 3vidence 2y ago
    I think we have reached a terminus. But I do want to say I appreciate your respectful and straightforward messaging. What I've described above isn't a theoretical problem, it is an actual occurring issue that has happened time after time. I don't want to say it's "privileged" but I think you are personally down playing the difficulty these issues raised on specific groups. If you read the Wikipedia article you will see that minority groups are significantly less likely to have up to date state IDs. And respectfully anyone without a permanent address can also have a very hard time getting ID. That point I'm making is that people in these groups will still vote for policies that directly negatively impact their ability to participate in democracy. Not a strawman argument, based on actual voter data. It could be a part of the larger problem that a decreasing percentage of Americans are even voting at all.
    - fastball 2y ago
      That is the point that you're making, but you kinda need to back it up. I have seen little evidence that people voting for voter ID laws struggle to get IDs, just evidence that some people struggle.

throw0101a 2y ago

> Beyond economic self-interest, maybe particularly in the USA it is possible to vote for people who can actively undermine your vote in the future. E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP