http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Oct08d-Politics.pdf

Only 3% of registered voters think that McCain’s policies favour the poor.

I’d agree with Krugman’s assessment that “Mr. Frank was mostly wrong”, though it strikes me more a matter of “mostly wrong in some key areas”. His central point – that the Republican party have deliberately gone after voters on the basis of cultural issues, with no real intention of actually enacting policy that would stop the supposed “liberal war on values”, still seems sound enough. But the evidence would suggest such a strategy has actually had relatively little impact on voting patterns.

…I cant see why academics and various commentators would waste time writing various rebuttals and analyses of it if it was simply, as you say, bollocks.

*Head desk*
*Head desk*
*Head desk*

I don’t dispute his hypothesis as it currently stands is highly inadequate. But I can’t see why academics and various commentators would waste time writing various rebuttals and analyses of it if it was simply, as you say, “bollocks”.

As for NPOV’s utopian voter model, it doesn’t stack up even on these restricted facts. By not voting for anyone, the Kansan increases the chance that murder-fans will vote for the Democrats and the chances of state-sanctioned murder are increased?

~ ~ ~

In any event, I think the more fundamental problem with Franks’ argument is that he is completely wrong. And even liberals agree. The guy whose work NPOV is probably referring to when he refers to evidence that Democrats are better for the working classes than Republicans, Bartels, has written a new review with an apt title:

Whats the Matter with Whats the Matter with Kansas?

Thomas Franks Whats the Matter with Kansas? asserts that the Republican Party
has forged a new dominant political coalition by attracting working-class white
voters on the basis of class animus and cultural wedge issues like guns and
abortion. My analysis confirms that white voters without college degrees have
become significantly less Democratic; however, the contours of that shift bear little resemblance to Franks account. First, the trend is almost entirely confined to the South, where Democratic support was artificially inflated by the one-party system of the Jim Crow era of legalized racial segregation. (Outside the South, support for Democratic presidential candidates among whites without college degrees has fallen by a total of one percentage point over the past half-century.) Second, there is no evidence that culture outweighs economics as a matter of public concern among Franks working-class white voters. The apparent political significance of social issues has increased substantially over the past 20 years, but more among better-educated white voters than among those without college degrees. In both groups, economic issues continue to be most important. Finally, contrary to Franks account, most of his white working-class voters see themselves as closer to the Democratic Party on social issues like abortion and gender roles but closer to the Republican Party on economic issues.

It seems I obviously have a different definition of rationality to other posters here. I don’t accept that simply “voting according to your preferences” makes you a rational voter. There has to be a genuine justifiable belief that your vote is actually likely to help bring about a result you want. If all you want is more money, then voting for party that promises to scrap all taxes might well be voting according to your preferences, but there’s nothing rational about it, because it’s quite obvious that a) such a policy is never going to be implemented and b) if it were, it would have disastrous consequences.

I think his original point was fine. On the other hand, I also thought it was obvious from the outset – despite being unspoken – that the motivation was a tactical vote to push environmental issues since that’s the raison d’etre of the Greens. Your mileage clearly varies.

Contrary to your view, a racist voting for a racist party IS voting rationally and logically. The problem here is that you are confusing rationality with preferences. You may consider the racists beliefs irrational, but he is voting consistent with his beliefs and preferences.

Yes. I thought that’s what I said.

I’m sorry, but I don’t see how you can knowingly claim to vote for the ALP based on “wishful thinking and unfounded enthusiasm” and then claim that your vote is “perfectly rational”.

Not that there’s anything necessarily wrong with irrational voting, up to a point. After all, there are good reasons why many human behaviours are irrational (e.g. falling in love – if we fell in love purely on a rational basis, then the moment someone else came along that was a rationally better choice, we’d jump ship. But that defeats one of the main benefits of falling in love, i.e., to encourage us to form long-lasting stable partnerships).

My vote is perfectly rational, even if its based entirely on wishful thinking and unfounded enthusiasm.

Yes it is rational, yet you don’t expect that of others.

As for #65 wouldn’t optional voting help reduce most of that?

Im arguing against Fyodors contention that tactical voting in a preferential voting system is irrational.

Ah, but that’s not my contention at all, Gilmae. My contention is that NPOV doesn’t seem to be voting tactically at all, hence no more rationally than the average voter. You’ve done NPOV an excellent service in spinning his arguments into a coherent tactical strategy, but the unfortunate reality is that his own arguments justifying his vote are an incoherent muddle.

I think its both. NPOVs explanation of his rationality as opposed to Kansan irrationality was based on the justifiability of his beliefs, which is a political, not logical, argument. Im trying to argue that the term rational when applied to politics is a moveable feast.

For the reasons youve described, a One Nation party voter who correctly assesses ONP as the best Party for racists is economically rational, and votes perfectly coherently. Racism as a worldview, however, remains positively irrational (as is, I might add, my own enduring belief in the ALP as a pro-worker institution).

No, not a moveable feast, Liam, but a matter of subjectivity, and that doesn’t mean it’s free of logic. Contrary to your view, a racist voting for a racist party IS voting rationally and logically. The problem here is that you are confusing rationality with preferences. You may consider the racist’s beliefs irrational, but he is voting consistent with his beliefs and preferences. Socialism is thoroughly irrational, but I accept that socialists will vote according to their preferences and that this is a rational choice FOR THEM. What’s not rational is voting against your own interests and preferences.

As far as abortion goes, this is simply false. There is solid, factual evidence that bans on abortion do very little (if anything) to reduce it, and typically lead to more deaths than would occur otherwise. If this were not the case, then I wouldn’t have a huge issue with those who wished to ban abortion.

Rational, according to m-w.com, means having reason or understanding. Surely that requires being informed?

Not at all. Lots of people go into the polling booth cursing that all politicians are the same and it doesn’t matter who they vote for, and for them, a donkey vote or a spoiled ballot is perfectly rational (though stupid). Lots of people recently voted for Labor because they thought Rudd was cooler than Howard, a shallow but rational choice based on their wanting to have a younger Prime Minister.

Ive got every reason to assume that someone who believes that banning abortion is a good way to reduce behaviour you consider immoral is uninformed.

No, you just disagree with them politically. So do I, but their choice to vote for anti-abortionist candidates because of their anti-abortion beliefs is perfectly reasonable.

Patrick, fair enough – but is there actually evidence that anti-abortionists have voted against the Democrat party because of a concern that Democrat policies would make abortion easier to access? Further, that doesn’t fully explain why they then voted Republican – they could have not voted at all, surely.

Now, NPOV, youre confusing being rational with being informed. Theyre two totally different things.

He has done that all along!

NPOV,

To be honest, I dont know whether Frank has an opinion on whether its rational for a Kansan who thinks abortion is wrong to vote for a party thats promising to ban it, but I will certainly stand by my claim that its not, and its that which makes their vote irrational as much as anything else.

The propositon was negative, NPOV. It was that you would not vote for the party that planned to extend legal access to abortion.

Just as you would not vote for the party that planned to ban it.

And as I hoped my earlier posts had explained, the economic argument is essentially an assumption. If it is valid, it is only with regards to the short-term – which some might consider a fundamentally irrational basis on which to vote!

…………. that blue-collar Kansans who vote for anti-abortion Republicans, and are surprised when public spending declines,

They sure would be. I’d fall off my chair if that has ever happened or will ever happen in the future. Public spending under the GOP has never fallen in modern history. Even under Reagan.

Liam, you’re just making this up as you go along.

For the reasons youve described, a One Nation party voter who correctly assesses ONP as the best Party for racists is economically rational, and votes perfectly coherently.

Fyodor never suggested this. he was quite clear.

This doesnt mean – as is often assumed by those with an ideological axe to grind – always acting to maximise economic or monetary wealth. It means simply working out what you want and acting to achieve that. And what you want can be as uneconomically abstract as art, a clean environment, a republic, whatever. Thus trading wealth, income or votes for those things you want is not only rational in utilitarian terms, its rational in economic terms. Likewise, voting Green is rational if you want what the Greens want. Its economically incompetent, IMO, but thats a different issue.

The discomfort itself may be irrational, but that isn’t the issue here, it’s the degree to which your vote is actually likely to have a beneficial effect.
Likewise, I don’t care whether someone believes abortion is wrong or not (and indeed I don’t even think you can prove this by rational means), but I do care that they want a policy that can, by means of evidence and rational argument, be shown to have highly damaging effects (and, further, have virtually no effectiveness in actually achieving the desired goal of fewer abortions).

the distinction you draw is neither accurate nor necessary

I think it’s both. NPOV’s explanation of his rationality as opposed to Kansan irrationality was based on the justifiability of his beliefs, which is a political, not logical, argument. I’m trying to argue that the term “rational” when applied to politics is a moveable feast.
For the reasons you’ve described, a One Nation party voter who correctly assesses ONP as the best Party for racists is economically rational, and votes perfectly coherently. Racism as a worldview, however, remains positively irrational (as is, I might add, my own enduring belief in the ALP as a pro-worker institution).

To be honest, I don’t know whether Frank has an opinion on whether it’s rational for a Kansan who thinks abortion is wrong to vote for a party that’s promising to ban it, but I will certainly stand by my claim that it’s not, and it’s that which makes their vote irrational as much as anything else.

If there truly was a good argument that, for instance, it actually made sense to vote for a party promising to ban abortion just because you thought it was wrong, then I’d accept that such a vote was reasonably rational. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that such voters didn’t spend a great amount of time thinking all that much about the likely consequences of their vote.

Now, I’m happy to accept that a certain amount irrational prejudice went into my vote, but my vote was never a foregone conclusion and I spent some time talking to all the candidates I was voting for (with one exception, that being the sitting member, who I had every reason to want voted out – with no luck unfortunately). I made sure I was at least reasonably familiar with the range of policies on offer, ensured I understood how the preferential voting system worked, and decided my preferences accordingly. Is it really then that unreasonable for me to then claim that my voting process was more rational than that of the average voter, regardless of where they live and who they vote for?

And it’s not enough to suggest I think I’m more rational because I don’t share the typical “Kansan values”. There are plenty of people who don’t share my values who I’m confident voted at least as rationally as I did, including many on this forum.