Originally Posted by l3bbyirv33
You said that you think that people should vote for Sens and Reps that don't do what the Majority want, but what is best for all society.
Don't you think that what the Majority wants is what's best for the society??
no, the average voter wants what is best for them.
hence they vote for the person who campaigned on a platform of what is best for them.
think of it this way,
Ignoring the people who say it's not happening, we'll look at global warming.
In the simplest way, carbon dioxide produces global warming, car produce carbon dioxide.
if the world boils we all die
thus we should kerb the usage of cars.
the best thing for society is that we stop using cars.
anyone who campaigns that all cars should be banned, for the greater good of the world would instantly loose most votes.
conversely, a candidate who campaigned that all tax should be reduced on fuel prices to zero, (making fuel and car ownership much cheaper) would instantly gain hundreds of votes.
the irony is that the first candidate is doing what would be best for society, the second candidate is actually making a problem worse.
people don't vote for a greater good, they vote for themselves.
the world boils and we (along with mostly everything else on earth die).
people can put up with a little bit of pain, but they'll still choose what's best for them in the long term.
imagine two candidates again, one likes driving everywhere everyday, the other likes going out for nice meals, drinking wine, they relax in the evenings with a glass of whiskey and enjoy spending weekend with friends eating and drinking.
we have to raise a certain amount of tax revenue.
candidate 1, says cars are great, I drive everyday.
because candidate 1 drives everywhere all the time they never or rarely drink, (because drinking and driving is bad).
Thus candidate 1 says, motoring today is too expensive, it's impossible to enjoy car ownership, and something so essential as owning a car to get to work or to visit family is becoming prohibitively expensive. Vote for me, I'll make car ownership cheaper,
when questioned where they'll find the money, they tell you that they'll raise the duty on alcohol, this will have the added benefit of making drink more expensive and clearing up the state of the nation with regards the amount of alcoholics, it'll free up hospital resources, make the nation healthier... etc etc etc
Candidate 2 says, Alcohol is too expensive, it's become so prohibitively expensive to be able to do something so essential as to relax and socialise with friends. the average voter today cannot afford to have a beer on a Friday night after work, the average voter is being punished in the name of improving the nations health by trying to make alcohol more expensive. candidate 2 says vote for me and I'll relax return the world to a better time, when you weren't working half a day to pay to go out for a beer after work.
when questioned where they'll get the money from, they say that they'll raise money by reducing what they see as a government subsidy on motoring, and the effects of motoring, they'll introduce newer clean air bills, they'll make motoring more expensive, this will clean up the air, clean up the planet, make cities safer, encourage people to car pool, encourage people to walk places and improve their fitness...
both have adequate points...
now the question is this,
who would you vote for and why?
I imagine a person who has to drive daily is going to think that they need to have their car, so they'll vote for candidate A, Sure they can pretend that they are after a greater good, cleaning up the streets, stopping binge drinking etc, but really, they've voted for themselves and what they need, they'll accept that the bottle of wine that they get themselves in a restaurant everyone and a while whilst they and their wife goes out for dinner may be a little more expensive. but that's the cost of doing a greater good.
a person who doesn't drive, we'll say someone who works in construction, might vote for person B, they like the beer that they get at the end of the week, they work damned hard to get that bottle of frosty cold beer, and after working a hard week they damned well need it!
they too can pretend that they've voted for a greater good, cleaner air and safer streets, they'll accept that the bus ticket that they buy every once in a while when they want to go across town is more expensive, after all that's just the cost of doing a greater good.
but really, both people voted for themselves. they can pretend they voted for a greater good, but they didn't.
if candidate 3 came along and promised to raise tax dollars on fuel and alcohol, with no reductions elsewhere they wouldn't get any votes. because nobody would see that it'd benefit them, they'd just see that there was the government looking to take away even more of their hard earned money.
sure, you'll get your mother earth worshipping hippies, whose body is a temple, and they'd never poison it with alcohol, they'll vote for candidate C because it cleans up the air and makes the word a better place.
it seems like they voted for a greater good, I mean they voted to be taxed more, whilst receiving no benefits themselves. they really did vote for a greater good.
but we call those kinds of people "the lunatic fringe" for a reason.