I’m not an US citizen, so my knowledge of US politics may not be deep enough to grasp some of the subleties of the topic, but my overall impression was that unless you are very rich, it is in your best interest—and thus clever—to be liberal.
It’s weird how often people express this idea.
Since the marginal effect of your political affiliation upon the policies of a nation of 300 Million people is trivial, we shouldn’t really expect it to be “in your interest” to vote for the bloc that promises you income transfers/lower taxes, etc. Rather, it is “clever” for people to vote their affiliations (i.e. what their family, friends, and coworkers vote for). This model actually correlates with the way people actually vote.
Rather, it is “clever” for people to vote their affiliations (i.e. what their family, friends, and coworkers vote for).
It is clever to say that you vote your affiliations.
This model actually correlates with the way people actually vote.
Our ‘voting’ instincts come from a (slightly misapplied) execution of strategies that are adapted for political environments where support is giving via public declaration rather than anonymous ballot. At a national and global level it may well be one of humanity’s greatest weaknesses.
It is clever to say that you vote your affiliations.
The rationalist Bradley effect, if you will.
There was a clever exploit of this trick in the first post-WW2 Italian general election: the opposing choices were a Communist-Socialist alliance versus a Catholic-led conservative coalition, and one of the strongest Catholic slogans was: In the voting booth, God sees you—Stalin doesn’t!
Local government elections do exist. In those contexts it might make more sense to vote on policy issues. But in practice, most local government policy issues have little to do with the standard left/right divide. Moreover, the strength of affiliation issues becomes even more severe when people actually know the candidates.
(It is even more clever to vote for the bloc that is likely to provide a more favourable government, while displaying in public the affiliation that has the best social returns. The rationalist Bradley effect, if you will.)
It’s weird how often people express this idea.
Since the marginal effect of your political affiliation upon the policies of a nation of 300 Million people is trivial, we shouldn’t really expect it to be “in your interest” to vote for the bloc that promises you income transfers/lower taxes, etc. Rather, it is “clever” for people to vote their affiliations (i.e. what their family, friends, and coworkers vote for). This model actually correlates with the way people actually vote.
It is clever to say that you vote your affiliations.
Our ‘voting’ instincts come from a (slightly misapplied) execution of strategies that are adapted for political environments where support is giving via public declaration rather than anonymous ballot. At a national and global level it may well be one of humanity’s greatest weaknesses.
The rationalist Bradley effect, if you will.
There was a clever exploit of this trick in the first post-WW2 Italian general election: the opposing choices were a Communist-Socialist alliance versus a Catholic-led conservative coalition, and one of the strongest Catholic slogans was: In the voting booth, God sees you—Stalin doesn’t!
Brilliant anecdote, I’ll use that one. Thanks. :)
Local government elections do exist. In those contexts it might make more sense to vote on policy issues. But in practice, most local government policy issues have little to do with the standard left/right divide. Moreover, the strength of affiliation issues becomes even more severe when people actually know the candidates.
(It is even more clever to vote for the bloc that is likely to provide a more favourable government, while displaying in public the affiliation that has the best social returns. The rationalist Bradley effect, if you will.)