For instance, anti-abortion and lower taxes. — Benkei

Your argument works for the pro-life side of things.

But voting for lower taxes against social programs such as universal healthcare is precisely an example of such voters going against their own interests.

I'm afraid that by focusing on the illustrative example as my "argument" you missed the actual argument. If people vote on single issues then a two-party system will inevatibly cause them to vote against some of their interests because two parties can never align their policies in such a way as to cater to a majority of individual interests. Only a multi-party system would be able to do that.

This means voters do not vote against their interest, but that they prioritise their interests and vote accordingly. What you do is project your own priorities on them and then don't understand their voting behaviour (how can they not see that lower taxes and no universal healthcare is bad for them!). Answer: they don't think it's as important as wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade. It's not ignorant, stupid or irrational to do so.

they don't think it's as important as wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade. It's not ignorant, stupid or irrational to do so. — Benkei

No, I understood your argument fully. I'm saying that it only applies to certain issues, and that you listed one in which it is a rational decision, and one in which it isn't.

Just because they believe lower taxes are better for them doesn't mean it isn't an irrational belief and therefore an irrational vote.

Why is it irrational? If I make 1 million USD a year then social security isn't an issue and it isn't irrational. If I ideologically believe tax is theft, then it isn't irrational.

There are a lot of assumptions underlying your conclusion it is irrational to believe lower taxes are better. You can disagree with these people, but you cannot claim someone holding that position is irrational.

Why is it irrational? If I make 1 million USD a year then social security isn't an issue and it isn't irrational. — Benkei

No one is saying that millionaires would be voting against their own interests by voting against healthcare.

Fine. I'd probably stop caring about healthcare around 100 kUSD as well. The point remains that you will fundamentally misunderstand, and in the process alienate, the people you so desparately want to convince to prioritise other (mutual) interests.

The point remains that you will fundamentally misunderstand, and in the process alienate, the people you so desparately want to convince to prioritise other (mutual) interests. — Benkei

Understanding why someone is voting for something and understanding that this vote is irrational are not only not incompatible, they necessarily go together. It is because I understand why people are against taxes that I know it's against their own interests and irrational.

I think calling people to their faces irrational might alienate them and be just undiplomatic all around. But I don't think laying out why X is not in their best interest but Y is does or should alienate anyone. People who do feel alienated by that (i.e., by a rational presentation of the other view) are opting out of the conversation from the get-go and thus lost causes.

I'd probably stop caring about healthcare around 100 kUSD as well. — Benkei

If you were a single person household.

This might just be semantics. Just to check : can someone be wrong and still be considered rational?

Just to check : can someone be wrong and still be considered rational? — Benkei

Yes.

Ok, so why isn't someone, who believes lower taxes are better, not just wrong but also irrational?

That may look like voting against your own interests to some, but that's because they are projecting their own "big issues" on those that voted differently. Obviously, if you are more community-minded and think social justice is very important, it looks like Trump voters voted against their own interests. And they did by that specific standard but it would be wrong to think they voted irrationally. They still voted in favour of other personal interests.

Now, if the political landscape would offer more policy combinations, that would include for instance, "lower taxes but in favour of abortion" you'd see people would actually be capable to truly vote in accordance with their interests. So don't blame the voters, blame the system. — Benkei

This is a good constructive comment, with which I agree with, Benkei.

And I actually do blame the system: the fixed duopoly landscape doesn't create the fear of losing the voters. Evidentially after at least 8 years likely the voters will be so fed up of the current party that they will swing to the other one. So you just can sit out the opposition time in a think tank or in the private sector ready to go back in four or eight years.

A two party, two agenda choice simply cannot represent all the various views and mixes of opinions people have as you stated. A two option race makes people usually to pick the less bad option. And typically in the US if the economy is doing OK, the advantage is to the ruling administration. Yet now the political field is so polarized, it's hard to tell how it will end. Thinking that people are simply irrational, uninformed and hence vote against their interests is in my view condescending. Yet that doesn't mean that totally absurd mudslinging won't have an impact.

wer taxes are better, not just wrong but also irrational? — Benkei

Being pro-life is generally a whole, consistent worldview.

Being against taxes and healthcare tends to run into inconsistencies and contradictions the moment you look closely at it.

Your argument works for the pro-life side of things.

But voting for lower taxes against social programs such as universal healthcare is precisely an example of such voters going against their own interests.

I don’t get how it is against my interests to vote for lower taxes when I am interested in paying less taxes.

I don’t get how it is against my interests to vote for lower taxes when I am interested in paying less taxes — NOS4A2

Depends why you want lower taxes.

Depends why you want lower taxes.

Because I prefer to pay less money to the government.

Because.....?

Because.....?

Because it’s my money, not theirs.

Because it’s my money, not theirs. — NOS4A2

And right there you've shown you don't even understand what taxes and the government are and what their purpose is.

And right there you've shown you don't even understand what taxes and the government are and what their purpose is.

That’s not true. I just don’t get how it is against my interests to vote for lower taxes when I am interested in paying less taxes.

That’s not true. I just don’t get how it is against my interests to vote for lower taxes when I am interested in paying less taxes. — NOS4A2

Still waiting for a good reason on your end.

Still waiting for a good reason on your end.

Because you cannot defend your claim.

Because you cannot defend your claim. — NOS4A2

Defend against what? :rofl:

I think calling people to their faces irrational might alienate them and be just undiplomatic all around. But I don't think laying out why X is not in their best interest but Y is does or should alienate anyone. People who do feel alienated by that (i.e., by a rational presentation of the other view) are opting out of the conversation from the get-go and thus lost causes.

Why won’t you lay out why X is not in my best interest but Y is? Are you opting out of the conversation, and thus a lost cause?

Why won’t you lay out why X is not in my best interest but Y is? Are you opting out of the conversation, and thus a lost cause? — NOS4A2

To continue the conversation I asked what your reason for X is. You haven't offered me anything aside from versions of "because I don't wanna."

There are some reasonably irreducible claims, but "I don't want to pay taxes" is not one of them.

So, if that's your entire reasoning, I rest my case on the irrationality of your position.

To continue the conversation I asked what your reason for X is. You haven't offered me anything aside from versions of "because I don't wanna."

There are some reasonably irreducible claims, but "I don't want to pay taxes" is not one of them.

So, if that's your entire reasoning, I rest my case on the irrationality of your position.

That’s not what I said, but I doubt accuracy is paramount here. It’s my money; I earned it; I know best what to do with it. It’s really that simple. If you cannot explain how that is irrational or don’t want to answer or cannot say how that is against my best interest, that’s fine, but just know that I was genuinely curious.

So you're sticking with "because I just don't wanna."

Well, when you have an argument, get back to me.

So you're sticking with "because I just don't wanna."

Well, when you have an argument, get back to me.

But this is a blatant straw man. I clearly did not say that. I suppose evasions and dodging is the best approach given the sheer emptiness of your claims.

But this is a blatant straw man. I — NOS4A2

Sorry you feel that way.

Still waiting for an actual argument.

People do indeed vote against their interests. Not their "real" interests in the sense you mean -- like I know what their "real" interests are and they stupidly vote against them. They themselves acknowledge they would benefit from certain policies, like extending medicare, but vote for politicians that refuse to implement such policies. That's voting against one's interests. And they have their reasons, too: they're willing to stomach a candidate they don't even like for other reasons. What are these "other reasons"? Usually social issues like abortion, guns, immigration, religion, anti-liberalism, being anti-"elites," etc. This is what is seen when you talk to people, and it shows up in the polls as well. Most of it is complete nonsense, yet they vote on the basis of it.

I'm beginning to get the impression that the claim "people vote against their own interests" is always levied against people who vote differently than the claimant. He voted differently than me, therefor he voted against his own interests. I could easily claim the same of you, for example. So I think it's more of a condescending accusation rather than useful comment.