> uninformed people form such a large percentage of the voting pool
agreed.
but surely the natural solution is to increase the number of informed people (education, PSAs, 'nudging' people towards being more informed). not to disenfranchise the poor.
agreed.
but surely the natural solution is to increase the number of informed people (education, PSAs, 'nudging' people towards being more informed). not to disenfranchise the poor.
The poor often vote against their own interests [1]
So even for the poor, it is better to remove these voters from the voting pool.
[1] http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/opinion-why-the-poor-vote-against...
Another reason I've often heard suggested as helping poor people in the US vote fot politicians who won't help their financial situation is that of the "American Dream", the idea that anyone who works hard can rise up and become wealthy. People could think "sure, I'm only earning $20k now, but I don't want to raise taxes for the millionaires because it could effect me in the future".
I don't have any data (might have a google around when I have more time if I remember) but I'm pretty sure the US is fairly unique in how many of it's poorer population votes towards the right wing of the political spectrum, thanks largely, I suspect, to religious regions, and possibly the american dream idea. Here in Europe, working class people who vote towards the right are more likely to be doing it either about stuff like immigration into the country, or when far right parties make themselves sound like common sense honest people compared to typical misleading politicians. But generally speaking, you rather expect a strong corrolation between less wealthy going left and more wealthy going right.
When I speak to most people on politics they truly believe their candidate is better on almost ALL the issues, not just a core value they agree with. Whatever the underlying lever you believe turns a specific set of people to one political party or another, they have an annoying habit of also buying into the other BS the party will spout.
>> agreed.
>> but surely the natural solution is to increase the number of informed people (education, PSAs, 'nudging' people towards being more informed) not to disenfranchise the poor.
The conversation could enter a loop at this point.
Also, since the same groups that spread the ignorance in the article, are often very active in trying to disenfranchise the poor, either they are incompetent or they know quite well that there's things they want to push through that widespread democractic representation would prevent, even in it's current dysfunctional state.
And they could save all the money they spend convincing poor people to vote against their own interests, and use it to convince lower middle class people to vote against their own interests (at least until they can disenfranchise them too).
>Second, there is no evidence that “culture outweighs economics as a matter of public concern” among Frank’s 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.
Do the poor vote against their interests, or do upper-middle-class people in poor areas vote their own interests while suppressing the vote of the poor?