What dictates whether a person votes for a l or r party?

Page 1 of 1 [ 8 posts ] 

firemonkey
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,191
Location: Calne,England

08 Nov 2019, 12:41 pm

Economic or social factors?


_________________
Support mental health research
Please support mental health research
http://www.mentalhealthresearchuk.org.uk/
http://mcpin.org/
https://www.mqmentalhealth.org/


Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 133 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 47 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,605
Location: Stendec

08 Nov 2019, 2:55 pm

Yes, and more.

It's better to vote for the person and not the party.


_________________
 
“I must acknowledge, once and for all, that the
purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis.”

— Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock, in the Star Trek
episode "The Mark of Gideon" (ep. 3-16, 1969)


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,387
Location: Midwest

08 Nov 2019, 2:59 pm

This is a complex question that has a lot of of potential answers. As in complex questions it is usually a mix of things.
I happen to subscribe to the moral psychology framework proposed by Johnathan Haidt.

Johnathan Haidt a moral psychologists proposes a six factor model for why people value certain things. The factors are Care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression. He breaks people up into 3 general groups: liberals/progressives, libertarians, and social conservatives. Liberals/progressives typically emphasize 3 factors: care/harm, fairness/cheating, and liberty/opression. Libertarians will typically emphasize just 2 factors: fairness/cheating and liberty/oppression. Social conservatives will emphasize all six more evenly. The difference being a relative emphasis on loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation compared to their counterparts and relative disemphasis on care/harm, fairness/cheating, and liberty/oppression.

1) Natural inclinations. Haidt proposes that some people may have genetic inclinations to each of these morality paradigms.

2) Social upbringing. There is a lot of evidence that people mainly follow the same politics as their parents and upbringing. This is not in contrast with Haidt's proposal as any development proposes both genetic and environmental factors shape views. Furthermore, one inherits ones genetic factors from one's parents so this would likely correlate as well.

3) Political alliances. Party platforms are about building winning coalitions, so they are not always self-consistent. For example r-wing parties are both the parties of small government and authority. This is a contradiction that brings in both social conservatives and libertarians. This despite libertarians and liberals being more similar to each other than either to social conservatives.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,766
Location: temperate zone

08 Nov 2019, 3:07 pm

In the UK, and Europe, folks probably vote as members of a social class (workers vote labor, management votes conservative) more than in America.

We Americans are certain that we each are millionaires in the making. We each are certain that we will someday...be rich enough to donate to the Clinton Foundation!...Just as soon as we finish our degrees....from Trump University! :D



firemonkey
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,191
Location: Calne,England

08 Nov 2019, 3:29 pm

My father voted conservative in the UK. Living in the States he is pro democrat . Although I'm not sure he can actually vote. My step mum was staunchly pro Clinton in 2016.

His father , from what I know , was a conservative voter. I have never voted conservative.


_________________
Support mental health research
Please support mental health research
http://www.mentalhealthresearchuk.org.uk/
http://mcpin.org/
https://www.mqmentalhealth.org/


Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 133 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 47 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)


Shrapnel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 523

08 Nov 2019, 5:12 pm

Narrow self-interest is the only factor.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,605
Location: Stendec

08 Nov 2019, 5:51 pm

After every election, there is always someone who lectures me on how my votes were wasted because I voted against candidates and propositions that lost when the person lecturing me had favored them.


_________________
 
“I must acknowledge, once and for all, that the
purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis.”

— Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock, in the Star Trek
episode "The Mark of Gideon" (ep. 3-16, 1969)


thinkinginpictures
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 665

09 Nov 2019, 3:39 pm

Fnord wrote:
Yes, and more.

It's better to vote for the person and not the party.


Not always. Persons change their minds more often than parties do.

A party consists of many persons sharing the same common opinions. There's a lower risk of change of mind when voting for a party rather than a person because of simple statistics - ie. you'd have to change the minds of 10 or more politicians at the same time, in contrast to changing the mind of a single individual.

Which party you vote for depends solely on your source of income and whatever your way of life depends on.

For example, if you are a low wage worker, you get nothing from tax cuts as these are only handed to those with high income. Instead you'd want those with high income to contribute more to the welfare benefits you may recieve.

Forget about your thoughts of being a billionaire in the waiting. It most likely won't ever happen to anyone from working class.