This is where your argument breaks down. Gerrymandering has completely eliminated this as a reasonable belief in most places.
Most voters don't even care about issues, they care about parties, their team. As such, they don't care or want to incentive anything except their own team winning.
> the government can simply remove the tax break.
If most people want abortion to be legal, the government can simply legalize it.
Oh wait!
Seems like the problem is the voters then.
> If most people want abortion to be legal, the government can simply legalize it.
Per your earlier statement, that is not what most voters want. They want their team to win.
Yes. That means that your claim
> it's because the government (and by extension, the people it represents) want to incentivize that particular activity
particularly the
> (and by extension, the people it represents)
is false.
----
> Per your earlier statement, that is not what most voters want. They want their team to win.
False. The vast majority of people want their team to win.
Simultaneously, most people want abortion to be legal.
These statements are both true. The logical fallacy is here is an inability to recognize that it's and, not or.
In an ideal world, they would want both and would get both. However they have to pick. Hence it is not that they don't want it, it is that they want it and cannot get it because they don't want to pay the cost of getting it.