Why people consistently vote against their own interests to benefit the rich?

Because the rich control an overwhelming amount of the media we consume. They are capable of shaping the narrative to their benefit.

Because powerful people turned politics from a policy / representation in to politics as an identity. People will almost anything for their two minutes of hate.

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

--Lyndon B. Johnson

Let’s say I’m an American male. I like football. I like the NY Jets, because I also like to suffer.

I don’t have to read the news, or go to news websites, or listen to news radio, to hear about my Jets. I don’t have to risk accidentally learning about what’s going on in the world watching the 6 o’clock news every evening when all I really want to know is the latest saddening Jets news.

I can listen to podcasts that tell me about jets players health, fantasy picks, gossip, the latest games, and betting strategy. In the offseason my podcasts don’t go off air. I can go to websites where algorithms that have already identified me as a Jets fan bury any news about politics or social issues under a mountain of roster updates and advertisements for beer (because Jets fans need it).

Then it comes time to vote. These democrats all seem to talk about stuff I don’t care about or understand. This Trump guy says he will do stuff. I hate the way things are, but I don’t know why they are that way. Corporate monopolies? Antitrust? Voter suppression? All that shit got buried under Aaron Roger’s passing stats. And Trump wasn’t all that bad when he was president. Certainly better than I feel now, and while I’ll pore over individual player stats to take matchups into account when I set my fantasy football roster I’m not gonna go pore over statistics on the economy or anything. That shit is complicated and boring, and football stats are definitely not. So I never have to risk remembering that Trump was pretty fucking bad.

On Election Day I vote for the guy who says he’ll do stuff, and it’s easy to do it, and it’ll be fast, and I’ll like the outcome. I won’t vote for the party that gave up 30 years ago and whose message is basically “come on guys we’re trying really hard but this governing thing is impossible!”

That’s how, basically. That and bigots.

The sooner you realize the vast majority of humans are simply not very intelligent, the more everything starts making sense. And the more depressed you will be.

Because the rich do a LOT to make it turn out that way.

• News is largely controlled by capitalists.

• Education has been gutted in a lot of places to make way for private schools.

• Corporations can contribute tons of money to candidates. Setting aside the possibility that these are effectively bribes, even if that weren't the case, the candidates who get that money get to put out more ads and have more campaign infrastructure such as travel funds, staffers, etc.

• Various kinds of voter suppression.

• From the very founding of the country, the election system and government has been set up to hamper political participation. Obviously there was the fairly narrow franchise at the start. But even with that expanded, we have the electoral college, unequal apportionment, gerrymandering, first past the post, closed primaries, a court that's specifically there to slow down popular will, etc.

• Just being a representative "democracy" puts a barrier between people and the policies they want. You rarely if ever get to vote on policies. You have to vote for a candidate. And the candidate is a whole bundle of policies, but also a record, a personality, etc. So there can be all sorts of political messaging about candidates which has nothing to do with what their policies are. Because of the duopoly party system that is all but ensured by the aforementioned voting system, you aren't even going to have a candidate you can vote for that will represent your interests. And after all that, even if you manage to vote for someone who says they'll do the things you want... then they get into office and you're back on the sidelines. They go and do whatever it was they actually wanted to do, and you have fairly limited recourse for holding them accountable. The most you can do is decide to vote against them next election, but now you're back to square one.

• Broader, more participatory forms of political organizing have been violently repressed. Just look at the history of union busting or the police violence during the civil rights movement or even now, etc. In the workplace, where you're most likely to find others who share your class interests, your boss has a lot of control over you and it's in their interest to make sure employees don't talk politics and view each other as competition rather than potential allies.

• Along similar lines, racism has been used as a tool to divide people who would otherwise share class interests so they wouldn't focus their attention on capitalists.

Moral of the story: There is a long history of people struggling against capitalists for a better life and an equally long history of capitalists using every trick in the book to keep them from that goal. The political landscape you see today is the result of that history. Learn from it.

Because the rich pretend like it's in peoples interest, people believe them because oh they are rich they must know what they are talking about, and because people are stupid.

"I might be rich one day"

Generally people tend to focus on one thing and don't pay any attention to the side effects. Morons want lower taxes for themselves and don't pay attention to the fact that the wealthy get the most benefit out of conservative cuts or that they just defunded the benefits of having a government like enforced food safety regulations. Or they care about abortion because they buy lies about post birth abortions and ignore everything else. Or they just teally hate immigrants and want to be mad and don't care that the party of hate works against their other self interests.

Many people are stupid. Like really, really stupid.

Because they've successfully been conned into thinking that what's in the best interests of the rich is in their own best interests too.

Because our brains are not wired for the modern complex world. Most decisions we make, we make thanks to heuristics that are heavily exploited by other people.

One reason I have not read yet: scapegoating. In my country, back in the early 2000s it was the "terrorists" who made it possible to enforce a few unpopular and unconstitutional policies. Nowadays, it is the "immigrants" who take our jobs (we have a job shortage), housing (which was sold off to investors) and health care (which was sold off to investors). Point to a group that cannot defend itself and people will vote in your favor.

• Because propaganda works. If propaganda didn't work, companies would not advertise products and politicians wouldn't run campaigns. Rich sponsors fund politicians who promise to look after their interests. Well-funded politicians run better campaigns and win.

• Because politicians are, nearly without exception, above middle class, if not outright rich. They won't act too radically against their own class interests.

The only solution I know comes from ancient Athens. Sortition -> you hold a lottery to draw representatives. A few extremely stupid people will be drawn into parliament, but idiots are far better than sociopaths, and the current system gives undue representation to sociopaths (willing to climb over bodies if that gets them to power). If one then dislikes the idea of a considerable percentage of bumbling fools (as opposed to cunning predators) in parliament, one must feed everyone well, treat all childhood diseases and educate everyone as well as possible. As if their rational decisions were needed tomorrow.

Two camps

1. They don't know any better.

Basically leftists-in-training that haven't read enough wikipedia articles on Reagan yet.

2. People voting and believing political opinions with their gut instinct

Don't bother, and if you see one with a nazi flag, punch them in the face.

Put simply: They’re being lied to. Consistently and perniciously.

The lie is that their vote is going to benefit them somehow. Or that it’s going to hurt someone else exclusively. And, sometimes, it’s both—that it’ll hurt someone else, while bringing a benefit.

In all three cases, the real truth—that they themselves will still suffer—is neatly hidden away.

Informed consent: People are not against exploitation. They just want to switch sides. Why would you vote for something that cripples you once you got rich?

Uninformed consent: They honestly believe they are voting for their own interests.

Indifferent consent: Usually single issue or ideology-driven voter.

¯⁠\⁠_⁠༼⁠ ⁠•́⁠ ͜⁠ʖ⁠ ⁠•̀⁠ ⁠༽⁠_⁠/⁠¯

In the US at least, the systematic demolishing of the education system has led to a vast reduction in overall education and critical thinking skills. This was done on purpose. That, combined with the unexpected boon of the Internet, has led to massive wealth shifting from the many to the few.

You see the results of this change everywhere, especially on the Internet. Lack of basic spelling and grammar skills are just one symptom. All of that is to say that humans are primates and easily trained.

This is a complex question, but up front first and foremost in any Capitalist country, voting will always benefit the rich, even FDR style Social Democracy came about as concessions to prevent revolution in the context of a decimated working class and a rising USSR.

People, generally, vote along their class interests, but these are handled in a different manner depending on which country you are in. Using the US as an example, the DNC caters to social progressivism, while the GOP caters to social conservativism. On foreign policy, the GOP and DNC are near identical, and when it comes to domestic economic policy, the DNC caters slightly more to urban voters while the GOP caters to rural voters.

This is all, however, in the context of parties that function as businesses that sell policy to Capitalists. Both parties serve Capital, because Capital is what holds real power. It holds power over the media, the state, everything.

The answer to how to fix this is getting workers to organize. When workers organize, they raise their social and class awareness and can accomplish far more than atomized individuals can.

The root of it is that we don't teach skepticism or critical thinking in public schools. Seriously.

Question authority. Question everything. But especially question authority. They rarely have your best interests in mind.

A lot of people have aspirations of themselves being rich and if they can vote like rich people they participate in the rich aesthetic.

Here are a few examples of what I've seen them do in the time I've been alive.

• Lowering the amount of educated people by various means such as cutting (on not properly increasing) funding, restricting access to it,...
• Limiting access to (somewhat) correct information by buying up news media outlets, severely influencing social media, telling people that their "alternative media" is the only way to get correct information, and so much more
• Actively pitting groups of people against each other, black vs white, immigrants vs citizens, women vs men,...

Ignorance and gullibility. I fall for misinformation all the time, especially when it confirms my own biases and it takes real effort to maintain a mindset of "yes this sounds true, but is it actually?" It is also terribly inefficient. If someone tells me, when I was a kid, that daddylonglegs spiders are the most poisonous, I am likely going to just go "neat" and now I think that and say it. If you stop and verify EVERYTHING EVER you have no time to do anything in life. This makes the filter of critical thinking.....critical.

Also, it isn't about being stupid (though that helps). Some of the smartest people I know are conspiracy theory nutjobs. They can easily draw parallels between disparate facts, but can't filter their findings or understand correlation doesn't equal causation.

Propaganda. Lack of education. There's a reason they want to defund public schools. They're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. :)

Often when I see someone accusing people of voting against their own interests, it's pretty clear that the person making the accusation has not taken the time to understand the values others are basing their choice on.
If I could rob a person and be confident that I would never be caught and punished for doing so, am I acting against my own self interest if I chose not to rob them because it goes against my moral code? No, of course not. But based on the way some people talk about voting against ones self interest, you might think I just cheated myself out of free money. Is it possible that a person might "vote against their own interests" because of a misinformed view? of course, but you'll never understand a person's motivations by chosing to paint them with broad strokes based on your prejudices instead of getting to know them individually and trying to understand what it is they truly value.

People get more upset about a bad friend than a real enemy.

This question is actually pretty old. Already ancient Greek / Roman philosophers discussed this.

Google the word 'anacyclosis' if you want to learn more. Alternatively here is a video link. I marked the position where the cycle explanation starts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqsBx58GxYY&t=371

The rich have billions to spend on focus groups so they know exactly which buttons to push so that people vote the way they want.

https://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about

its not about red vs blue states. It's About The Country Vs. The City

A successful propaganda campaign by the owning class.

And a quote from an anonymous mutual:

many people will unfortunately need to learn this the hard way it seems at the expense of those who take the time to see the writing on the wall those ignorant to their exploitation will seldom listen to those who try to tell them how horribly theyre being fucked "if it were really so bad id notice" theyll say "this isnt so bad" theyll say, standing on the peak of the mountain that is dunning-kruger unknowing all we can do is wait, and watch to find out what what it is that throws them into the valley of unfathomable uncertainty in the meantime we must work for each other, for those who do see how good things could be. maybe then, our greener grass will coax them into giving us a fair listen

Because they want to see other people suffer

They get manipulated about and distracted by certain issues. The people who want power know this and exploit topics such as guns, abortion, fear of crime, racism/nationalism, sexism, economic issues and taxes. Plenty of people vote republican because they have been convinced that Democrats will take their guns, allow in too many immigrants (with the implicit idea that immigrants are bad somehow), be worse on the economy, raise taxes, let criminals get off easy, reduce the influence of Christianity, and so forth.

There’s also the decades of propaganda about socialism and communism, and against social safety nets as well as government and anything run by the government vs a private entity. So basically, because they’re not very aware or well informed and all themselves to be convinced by propaganda.

Do we actually vote to benefit the rich?

Many vote for leaders that openly cater to the rich, but I don’t know that we actually consciously vote to deliberately help the rich.

Those elected people are the ones telling everyone that the rich are the job creators. They used to feed us the farce that trickle-down was viable, they don’t even bother with the lie anymore. The rich are just squatters on wealth. They get that wealth by consolidating businesses, hoarding assets like real estate, creating artificial scarcity, enshittifying everything, and squeezing labor for more productivity while expending massive effort to minimize overall compensation.

And they own the media. All of it. Even the “liberal” media is mealy at best about taxing wealth or anything critical of the uber-wealthy, anything right of center is openly against tax, particularly of anyone with wealth, making the wealthy the “victims” of the left’s ideas while the wealthy are just parasites victimizing us all.

All that aside, the real crux of the issue is identity politics. Being a sycophant of the rich is no longer any different than being a evangelical supply-side Jesus CINO, pro-gun, anti-government, anti-tax, anti-environmental regs, blah blah and all the rest of the mulish conservative BS.

They don’t actually care if we cater to the rich. They care that their team says we should bend over and give the rich everything. Just like their team says school shootings are an acceptable price for having your own personal arsenal, or spreading a potentially deadly disease is better than being inconvenienced by closed restaurants.

Obstinate tribalism has gleefully supplanted critical thought.

Because they've been fooled into thinking it will either benefit them, or benefit people they feel "deserve it."

They're idiots

Stupidity, cult mentality, “my sports team” mentality, religion, and single issue voters.

One's "own best interest" can take a lot of different forms. Especially when the number and variety of plausible candidates are finite. Your preferred candidate for a given office will rarely line up perfectly with your own values. There's a compromise there.

If I vote for my own finances, it may come at the cost of my morals. It I vote for my own moral interest, it may cost me more. If I vote for my own power, it may cost someone else their freedoms. How heavily do I weight my own interests against those of a wider society? Political identities and philosophies are complicated, and can't necessarily be reduced to a single binary choice that is "best" in every scenario.

Who is there to vote for otherwise? Two sides of the same coin. The rich try to keep politics about anything except wealth inequality. The rich keep the good candidates off your ballot long before it’s time to choose between tweedle Dee and tweedle dum.

I can use my brother as an example for that:

My younger brother is entirely sold on billionaire philanthropy. He watched interviews where people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos on talk shows and podcasts, places where people like this go to advertise themselves, and has been completely convinced that they're innovative, smart people.

Smart people who, through just being so damn smart, managed to become billionaires.

The majority of people vote with their gut and won't look deep into what politician A is promising, so long as one of the promises is exactly the thing the person wants. For a considerable number of gamers, it's dealing with woke culture. Trump is a fervent enemy of "the woke", but he also promised hefty import tariffs on everything, so consoles can get really damn expensive. But hey, the woke sjw's are getting owned!!

This piece on Aftermath touches an important point as well, that left leaning content often takes care to not spout random bullshit, while right leaning will just say whatever because haha engagement goes brrrrrrr.

Going off a tangent, the Brazilian right complains that "the poor vote with their bellies", implying they'll vote for whoever promises "free money" or "free meals", usually in the form of govt programs. During election years, the right will try to claim they were the masterminds behind every sort of program meant to help poor people, such as Bolsa Familia, while loudly and constantly complaining about their existence and doing everything in their power to block money outside election years. It's common to find people who depend(ed) on Bolsa Familia to survive that complain about "freeloaders" that "want to be fed by the government". A good portion of right-wingers also believe that the govt pays a whole minimum wage to every person in jail, despite this bullshit being debunked several times already.

The rich are clever and very well coordinated

Usually this happens when you dont have a democracy. Establish a system with rank choice voting and a few dozen candidates, and you'll see votes closer aligned with voter interests

I think that it depends on the person. I've heard of enough people who voted for Donald because they like that he "says it like it is", or "he's a businessman", or because they just want lower taxes. Some people are so exposed to rage-bait social media/news content and are always being told what to be afraid of and they vote emotionally based on that fear. My grandfather votes the way he does because he's TERRIFIED of immigrants, even legal ones - because all he does is sit and watch fox news. I think most often, people are busy with their lives, paying their bills, taking care of their kids, etc. and don't have a lot of energy left over for politics. People treat voting like it's team sports. A ton of people voted for Donald because they thought tariffs were paid by the other country, not American businesses. I don't exactly blame people, it's a lot of information and life is probably a lot more relaxed for people that don't follow it.

Fundamental flaw of the democracy: It assumes that people know what's the best for them

Because it's no longer about benefits or interests.

It's about the "my side won, your side lost, get over it" mentality. It's about the tribalism and making sure you keep your ire focused on your fellow man rather than looking up and seeing the source of your problems

And it's not just the US. It's fucking everywhere.

If I’m struggling this much now then imagine how much harder it will be when I have to pay higher taxes

Most are wanting an end to this current system so they’ll ‘play’ it out knowing albeit the struggle, Democracy has left the building and late stage capitalism is showing the disparity of the predators and preys of society

They believe it will benefit them one day.

Probably unpopular answer, but it's not some clear cut "this political party has better policies for everyone". Republican policies usually are better for people living in rural areas, and Democratic policies are usually better for people in cities. I'm sure people will debate this, but this is the reason why people typically vote depending on where they live. At the very least, they believe that their party has better policies for them and their way of life.

My personal (anecdotal evidence) is that I work for a small business in a rural area, and our main customers are other small business owners (usually self employed or under 5 employees). Over the last 3 presidents, the Obama years were rough for our company, we had explosive growth during the Trump years, and then we've had stagnant growth over the past 4 years. Our largest competitor went out of business this past year, which sent us a lot of new customers, but we've also had a lot of our customers go out of business as well, so we've been pretty stagnant. Being stagnant isn't terrible, we don't have shareholders or anything, but the cost of living has increased and company profit/wages haven't which is a problem. That said I know we're doing pretty well compared to a lot of people here.

Another (once again anecdotal) example is that I have a friend who paints murals full time, for the past 30ish years. He told me that he does well with either Republicans or Democrats in office, but that his customers change. During republican presidents, his customer base is usually local businesses wanting to decorate their stores. During democratic presidents, his customer base is usually towns, state buildings, schools, etc.

But anyways, I'd be very interested to hear from some people living in cities if there's a visible uptick in income/etc when we have a democratic president, or in general what your personal observations are on how which president affects your local businesses/income/prices/etc.

False consciousness.

Manufactured consent

Kind of an indirect answer, but I've heard people state that they vote against their own personal beliefs because they think that there needs to be a balance between "good and bad". Obviously, this is complete bullshit. Even if there should be a "balance", we already have enough problems as is, we don't need the government making it worse.

It all boils down to education

In the US, is this actually the moment past the point of no return? Would you ever allow yourself to accept that truth if so, or will you need to see actually bodies in the streets before you believe it's over?

TL;DR: I blame FPTP.

Hm, I'd argue that this is a byproduct of the spoiler effect — I think it's due to strategic voting. I think that it's likely not due to people consciously voting against their own interests to benefit the rich (assuming that they indeed do this ­— ie that voting to benefit the rich is against their interests), but instead that the entities that support these sorts of beliefs, also tend to align with other beliefs that are more important to the voters, and "benefiting the rich", while possibly perceived negatively, is a sacrifice that the voters are willing to make.

Something to consider is not everyone's interests are aligned. I'm not American so I can't comment on that specific area of the world, but that sort of question comes up a lot in my country and one of the biggest reasons is one party wants to make my hobbies/job harder and the other doesn't. So I don't think I'll vote for them. Now you, someone who doesn't have said job or hobbies, probably doesn't give a fuck about that. So you support said positions.

It's hard to vote for one candidate that represents all your values or interests. Typically every candidate will be against your own interests in some manner. Preferential voting systems mostly curb this issue by allowing you to select many candidates in order of preference.

Because civic education is lowly valued. It's not, strictly speaking, intelligence. It's that they were never taught what politics actually means, and after a while, they figure that since they've gone so long without it and things have been 'fine' in their life, it must not matter all that much.

The incredibly recent Sri Lankan election enters the chat… and feels sad at being ignored.

Anger, Self-Loathing, and misguided Hate

Anger is like a fire. They're a useful yet dangerous tool that burns and breaks stuff. When handled correctly, fire can shine light in the dark, give warmth in the cold, cook meals for the hungry, or protect you from wolves. In other words, a well controlled Anger is good at getting work done.

Not everyone has learned how to manage their Anger properly. Some let their Anger go too dim, making it hard to do stuff. Some redirect their Anger at themselves, out of fear of hurting others or believing they deserve it. Some let their Anger spread without a care of who it hurts, as long as it gets the job done. Some learn to concentrate their Anger into a beam of Hate, but don't know who or what to aim the beam at.

Going back to the question "why do people vote against their own interests?" It is Self-Loathing. It is people who are so used to having a piece of themselves set on fire by others that they start setting themselves on fire of their own volition. It is misguided Hate. It is people who know there's a problem and want to fix it, but have been misled about the source of the problems by people who are interested in not getting targeted by Hate.

"Why do they vote to benefit the rich?" We don't have a choice there when either vote would have benefited the rich and powerful anyway. Just choosing between different types of benefits. Money and Power have a tendency to rise upwards, so any aid we give to those struggling at the bottom will end up benefiting those at the top anyway. But I hear ya, giving benefits to the poor and letting it rise away still beats just giving it to the rich and hoping it'll trickle down someday.

Bexause you have a two party system where both sides are corrupt

Because everyone thinks of themselves as a potential rich person. Or in other words: people think that being rich is the ideal state, so let’s align everything around that.

If we truly put a yoke on the rich and contained them, we would also be reining in the smallfolks dreams.

By contrast, rich people don’t sit around dreaming about being smallfolk and planning aspirationally for the day that will happen.

Since I didn't see it listed yet, fear of change.

Some folks are just fearful of change.

Rarely is a change proposal black and white. We can show you good data to support the change. We can look at it from a reputable source. We can look at how the change affected others. We can agree it's most likely a good change.

But sometimes we fear it.

What if we're wrong?

What would be an example of this? It's not obvious to me that by simply voting in a manner that benefits "the rich" then also means it's against your own interests. When someone gains something it doesn't mean I must lose something in exchange.