|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why Do The Poor Keep Voting For Poverty?
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quetzalcoatl wrote: quote:
The same is true if you drive across Surrey and other Tory heartlands - they were solid Brexit.
er - no. Surrey voted 52.2% remain and 47.8% leave. I don't live in Surrey though - I live in Hampshire, in the parliamentary constituency that until the boundaries were recently tweaked was the safest Tory seat in the country. And we voted remain as well.
Clearly there are some correlations with the two main parties, but they are utterly confounded by other factors, some of which have been discussed upthread by others.
What are the principal factors? There has been a lot of number-cruching since the Brexit vote, and it is definitely worth taking at this summary which is not only concise but does attempt to explain what they are. To draw out the main factors, they are in order:
1 - Level of education
2 - Age
3 - Ethnicity
Those three factors pretty much explain it - there is no need to invoke a fourth factor. Which leaves the interesting question posed in the OP - where does the proposition that this is about "the poor" come in? There are plenty of studies looking at this, and if you Google it you will find them. There is definitely a correlation there. This does make it different from the Trump phenomenon - the link provided by Croesos is clear on that. The thing is that in the Brexit context at least it seems to be that relative poverty is not orthogonal to education, age or ethnicity, and the other three factors in themselves have greater explanatory power.
For another day, that last observation speaks volumes about other matters. But until then, it does reveal that there are certain differences between the Trump vote and the Brexit vote, despite them obviously being movements towards the populist right.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Honest Ron - many thanks for that. I was being careless about Surrey, but you are right. It does look as if using poverty as a criterion is off target.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Before I read HRB, edgerkayshun I sed. In the UK & US. As in irreligiosity.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
You're predicating your comments on your assumption that they know that their vote is against their interests but still vote that way.
I am saying they should know and that it isn't rocket surgery to do the maths.
Some people do actually knowingly vote against their own overall interest. An easy example of that would be American anti-abortion voters.
Like Ian Climacus, I can't understand your last paragraph. Perhaps it's because pro/anti-abortion stances really don't form part of the political landscape here, but why is it that voting against abortion is against the interests sof those voting?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Like Ian Climacus, I can't understand your last paragraph. Perhaps it's because pro/anti-abortion stances really don't form part of the political landscape here, but why is it that voting against abortion is against the interests of those voting?
Yes, I was wondering about that too.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Like Ian Climacus, I can't understand your last paragraph. Perhaps it's because pro/anti-abortion stances really don't form part of the political landscape here, but why is it that voting against abortion is against the interests of those voting?
Yes, I was wondering about that too.
I've explained in the appropriate place.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Surely, "the poor" vote for certain politicians for roughly the same reasons as those which lead them to donate to "prosperity gospel" preachers.
The message "trumps" thought.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
IMO the debate about whether or not the 'poor' voted for Brexit and Trump masks a sudden fear of the 'people' by liberals. I'm amazed at the extent to which I've heard many liberals express doubts about democracy since Brexit. The core of a democracy is esteeming the people enough to reach the correct decision. Whether the people are 'poor' or not is irrelevant they can be trusted to reach the right decision. I hear the trite response already that some people lack the 'education' to reach the right decision. However could it not be the case that some people are too well educated to see the wood for the trees? Some times formal education obscures the truth by inhibiting intuition. The 'people' had an intuitive sense that the EU as not working. Perhaps the best illustration was the lack of any leadership from the EU during the referendum campaign itself. Would Lincoln have failed to lead when the confederate states seceded? Whilst the 'people' may not have analysed the situation in this manner they could sense that the EU lacked leadership and democratic legitimacy.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What makes liberals not "the people"? There are a lot more city dwellers than country yokels, it's just that city dwellers vote in smaller numbers. Some of this due to voter suppression tactics used by conservatives. But the idea that liberals aren't part of "the people" is offensive and inaccurate.
As for trusting "the people" to do "what's right"? Please. "The people" elected the Nazis.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What makes liberals not "the people"? There are a lot more city dwellers than country yokels, it's just that city dwellers vote in smaller numbers. Some of this due to voter suppression tactics used by conservatives. But the idea that liberals aren't part of "the people" is offensive and inaccurate.
As for trusting "the people" to do "what's right"? Please. "The people" elected the Nazis.
You've misunderstood me. I'm not excluding liberals from 'the people' what I'm saying is that some liberals exclude themselves from their own definition of the 'people' by setting themselves above and talking in this know it ally way about the 'economic implications'. Predicting the economy is like predicting the wheather there are too many contingencies to say with any certainty what the outcome will be.
Two points in response to the 'Nazi vote'. Firstly the Nazis did not win a majority. They were admittedly the largest party but in a context in which German politics was in turmoil.Secondly German democracy never really got off the ground after WW1. The Treaty of Versailles was a shambles and the victors in WW1 crippled the german economy. There are certain preconditions for democracy to work and those preconditions weren't present in Germany at that time. Many third world countries struggle to establish democracies today for the same reason. It doesn't mean that the people can't be trusted it just means that there needs to be stability in society before you can have stability in the state. The USA and Britain have done an unprecedentedly succesful job of keeping both the state and society relativly stable for hundreds of years.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I apologize for misreading you. Although I think you have given up a little too easily on economics. Sure we can't predict perfectly, and we can't predict out-of-the-blue incidents or unintended consequences. But you can be pretty sure that if the rich are sucking more and more money from the economy to where the non-rich are struggling to survive (cf. France 1789), the economy is not going to be particularly healthy.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I apologize for misreading you. Although I think you have given up a little too easily on economics. Sure we can't predict perfectly, and we can't predict out-of-the-blue incidents or unintended consequences. But you can be pretty sure that if the rich are sucking more and more money from the economy to where the non-rich are struggling to survive (cf. France 1789), the economy is not going to be particularly healthy.
Yes, I'm not saying that economics is completely useless any more than wheather forecasts are completely useless. Both a wheather forecast and the Brexit pessimists can tell me there is a storm coming and I will believe them but if they were to tell me that Britain will have a tropical climate in three months time I would be incredulous.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Maybe "the poor" are more principled and less self-interested than some well-meaning materialists give them credit for ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Hi Russ. For that callous post of evil intent you have been called to Hell. Enjoy.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As for trusting "the people" to do "what's right"? Please. "The people" elected the Nazis.
On the back of such arguments democracy dies. There are two paths to tyranny - the first is where a person or group wants to rule without having to gain the approval of the people, but the second is where a person or group decides that "the people" can't be trusted to vote the "right" way and thus removes their ability to do so "for their own good".
Neither path leads to a good place.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Meanwhile we see dishonesty and lies manipulate millions of turkeys in voting for Christmas.
I suppose that OK though.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
Perhaps the best illustration was the lack of any leadership from the EU during the referendum campaign itself. Would Lincoln have failed to lead when the confederate states seceded?
As a (admittedly soft) Remain voter, I'd have to say that I would have expected a proper intervention in the campaign by EU (especially one intended to demonstrate "leadership") to have backfired spectacularly. Which, in itself, does speak to a problem with how the EU is viewed.
Problem is, the best the Remain side seemed to be able to hope for (and I think, sadly, correctly) was winning on an "it's not great but it's better than the alternative ticket." There was a legion of potential reluctant Remainers who could swing it, and few out and out ardent EU enthusiasts.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Meanwhile we see dishonesty and lies manipulate millions of turkeys in voting for Christmas.
I suppose that OK though.
It's better than dictatorship, certainly.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There are two paths to tyranny - the first is where a person or group wants to rule without having to gain the approval of the people, but the second is where a person or group decides that "the people" can't be trusted to vote the "right" way and thus removes their ability to do so "for their own good".
Neither path leads to a good place.
But the path we are supposed to be on is one that balances the two. The people make their concerns known and the government puts in place the best solution for the people as a whole. The problem is currently that too few are doing the job they should.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Meanwhile we see dishonesty and lies manipulate millions of turkeys in voting for Christmas.
I suppose that OK though.
It's better than dictatorship, certainly.
Being beaten with a stick of wood is better than being beaten by a pipe of iron, but that doesn't mean beating is good.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There are two paths to tyranny - the first is where a person or group wants to rule without having to gain the approval of the people, but the second is where a person or group decides that "the people" can't be trusted to vote the "right" way and thus removes their ability to do so "for their own good".
Neither path leads to a good place.
But the path we are supposed to be on is one that balances the two. The people make their concerns known and the government puts in place the best solution for the people as a whole. The problem is currently that too few are doing the job they should.
No, the path we are supposed to be on is one where the people have the absolute right to choose who will govern them, through the means of being free to vote for whomever they choose and for whatever reasons they see fit.
The path you just put forward wouldn't actually require elections or the ability of the people to change their government at all. Which in turn would mean the people wouldn't have any say in what "the best solution for the people as a whole" actually is. The ability to have a say on that question is far more fundamental to democracy than the right to merely make your concerns known to the government.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There are two paths to tyranny - the first is where a person or group wants to rule without having to gain the approval of the people, but the second is where a person or group decides that "the people" can't be trusted to vote the "right" way and thus removes their ability to do so "for their own good".
Neither path leads to a good place.
But the path we are supposed to be on is one that balances the two. The people make their concerns known and the government puts in place the best solution for the people as a whole. The problem is currently that too few are doing the job they should.
No, the path we are supposed to be on is one where the people have the absolute right to choose who will govern them, through the means of being free to vote for whomever they choose and for whatever reasons they see fit.
The path you just put forward wouldn't actually require elections or the ability of the people to change their government at all. Which in turn would mean the people wouldn't have any say in what "the best solution for the people as a whole" actually is. The ability to have a say on that question is far more fundamental to democracy than the right to merely make your concerns known to the government.
WTF? Seriously? You couldn't work out that is what I am talking about? Representational government, the sort we nominally have now, that is what I am talking about. It is the nominal bit that is the problem, not the basic idea.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Not sure this will work on all computers, but this is from Forbes Magazine, explaining why poor people vote against their own interests.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Primrose Path
Shipmate
# 9137
|
Posted
Very few analyses of the Brexit vote dwell on the following phenomenon. During a stint as an expat in the Home Counties in 2011, I was very struck by the huge divide between the largely foreign-born rich and largely local-born white poor. The rich sent their kids to a variety of private schools and lived in huge houses in gated neighborhoods (one lady had an indoor swimming pool off her kitchen) which were cleaned and landscaped by largely white British locals. The British locals lived in ex-social housing and sent their kids to the local comp. This was even worse in central London. Not all these immigrants are brown, but they are different and their numbers and wealth discourage integration. It felt like colonialism. I should know, I grew up in British and French colonies. This would be invisible to voting returns, as few of these rich colonists vote, even if they have the right to. They really have little interest in local politics except to the extent that it affects business - and if a country becomes unprofitable, they leave.
--------------------
"The glory to which man is called is that he should grow more godlike by growing ever more human" (Fr Dumitru Staniloae)
Posts: 72 | From: Maryland, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
If you map the Home counties by final result, then they did indeed vote the way you imply. However, if you map percentage of the population who voted to leave, the results are more towards the overall result.
With the exception of London, which clearly voted to stay regardless of the metric.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Primrose Path
Shipmate
# 9137
|
Posted
The sad thing is that most of these wild geese (i.e, the foreign born oligarchs, bankers, imported CEOs, tax exiles and "experts") are not from the EU at all, but from elsewhere; see in particular the magenta line in Fig 11:
https://fullfact.org/news/do-uk-immigrant-workers-have-higher-average-earnings-uk-born-workers/
England as a sort of Macau or Tortuga for non-EU businesses seems a depressingly likely scenario. Not that it hasn't spent most of its history playing that role - viz the HSBC scandal - but the difficult issue is how that can be finessed into a less stratified society. I don't see it, myself. Perhaps we should be promoting UK degrees in cleaning and landscaping.
--------------------
"The glory to which man is called is that he should grow more godlike by growing ever more human" (Fr Dumitru Staniloae)
Posts: 72 | From: Maryland, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Not sure this will work on all computers, but this is from Forbes Magazine, explaining why poor people vote against their own interests.
Brilliant article.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
