Well, the renters will reward any government that pushes down house prices i.e. builds more houses. And I assume there are more renters than home owners.
"A slave dreams not of freedom, but of his own slaves."
I wish we had specific words for this type of hypocrisy. Seeing people in wealthy USA complain about people relatively wealthier than them, rather than looking at their own wealth versus the poor in other countries. Obviously the poor in the USA aren't living the life of Reilly, but they're far beyond the wealth of the poor in India. How wealthy were the 99% Occupy Wall Street protesters?
You can't make people see what they don't want to.
That’s not the same as the number of voters, obviously, but I’m not sure it’s a safe assumption, even before it gets into the actual voting dynamics from FPTP… there’s also presumably a lot of renters with their eyes on Mom and Dad’s home as an inheritance.
Of course it won't be as valuable as an asset, but assuming they are primarily using it as a house rather then an asset then lower housing prices may not significantly affect their voting behaviour.
Unlikely unless they’re an only child
A sibling post has stats from 15 years ago but a lot has changed since then. My gut feeling is that more people are struggling to buy than to pay back mortgages but I have no stats to back that up.
Almost every country has more home owners than renters, so no. In USA its 65%.