A morality question re. self-interested voting

[Feil]

Well, today I voted. Among other things on the Maine ballot was a referendum to "limit increases in state and local government spending to the rate of inflation plus population growth and to require voter approval for all tax and fee increases?", going under the name of Tax Payer Bill of Rights.

Now, normally I would be supportive of such a thing, particularly in Maine, which (as far as I can see) seems to have a rather self-destructive policy of taxation and spending that produces a hostile environment for business and professionals, which, in turn, is detrimental to the economy of the state and produces a 'brain drain'. In short, I think that TABOR is probably in the long-term best interests of my state.

However, being a college student at a Maine state university, I have a very vested interest in maintaining or increasing the amount spent on government programs (like universities). Furthermore, studies on the probable effects of TABOR almost invariably showed the neccessitation of a significant increase in the cost of attending the university.

So, in order to protect my personal well-being, I voted against what I think is in the long-term best interests of my state.


Is this moral? Is it an act of immoral greed, or simply an exercise in rational self-interest? Or something else?

[Darth Wong]

Those kinds of measures almost destroyed California's economy, didn't they? People still want their government services, but once they get the power to vote down tax increases, they will do so every time because people are short-sighted and stupid. The result is gigantic deficits.

[Feil]

Really? Damn...

Perhaps my specific question is meaningless then. Apparently I did insufficient research. Luckily, if that is accurate, the choice I made is the right one, even if I made it without knowing key information. I certainly feel better about my choice, though.

Still, I'd like peoples' thoughts on my question. Is it immoral to vote to defend one's own interests at the cost of what is (percieved by the voter) to be the long-term general good?

[The Guid]

To answer your question I don't think you're voting attitude makes you unusual. To take the UK as an example the tax cutting, little spending party's supporters tend to be well off and not need government money spent on them. Whereas the students of this country tend to support the Liberal Democrats who are against tuition fees.

[CaptJodan]

I've got mixed views on this question and thus look forward to other responses.

Human nature is to vote or support the way they believe on a certain issue, regardless of its actual morality.
(I actually had a conversation about this with my dad last night.
"I don't like what the republicans are doing with the war. I don't like what they're doing shipping jobs overseas, I don't like that they're spying on the public."
"Then why are you voting republican."
"Because the Democrats will raise my taxes!!!")
I think you also see a lot of older folks switch from republican to democrat when they get to be older. I know most of my grandparents did just that. Despite their religious ties and other conservative views, their main concern is health care right now and so they vote against the side that agrees with a good 80 to 90% of their views.

But I think it's important to try and take in a broader view and not be so self-centered. The moral choice would be what you precieve might benefit society more.

[Darth Wong]

Gay marriage is a somewhat anomalous case in which many people make it part of their voting decision even though it has no direct impact on them whatsoever.

[Sikon]

Voting is usually almost solely an altruistic act if one thinks about it logically. The chance of an individual vote out of millions deciding an election (or a referendum) is usually at most one in thousands. The average benefit to someone of voting in their own self-interest rather than what they perceive as best is limited on the individual level.

Even if the overall vote going one way would benefit someone by X thousand dollars, their logical risk-neutral motivation for voting in their own self-interest would only be equivalent to X/Y fraction of $1 if their vote had 1 chance in Y thousand of deciding the election. Relative to time spent, going to the polling place merely to vote in self-interest pays far less on average than even a minimum-wage job. (To illustrate the principle, hypothetically there could be some election where the one in many millions average chance of a person being killed in a traffic accident during their trip to the polling station could be more than the chance of their vote deciding the election). The one logical reason to vote is altruistic.

Thus, nobody should have any difficulty voting in the public best-interest, as there is typically no significant motivation or temptation to vote differently if one considers the situation mathematically.

[Simplicius]

So, in order to protect my personal well-being, I voted against what I think is in the long-term best interests of my state.

Is this moral? Is it an act of immoral greed, or simply an exercise in rational self-interest? Or something else?

Is it cheating if I say both?

It strikes me as difficult for a population to vote altruistically except in the msot clear-cut of circumstances, as there are are competing views of what a society should look like, and thus no clear consensus on what a properly altruistic vote would look like. For instance, the people who vote against gay marriage or abortion are probably convinced that such a vote represents what's best for society, rather than voting such because oppression is a hobby of theirs.

I'll toss out the generalization that people will project: what feels right to them = what is best for everyone else, in their minds. The only real difference is between the people who endeavor to make sure that they are informed and thinking rationally (and thus more likely to be right) and those who aren't.

Those kinds of measures almost destroyed California's economy, didn't they? People still want their government services, but once they get the power to vote down tax increases, they will do so every time because people are short-sighted and stupid. The result is gigantic deficits.

Another flaw with TABOR is that spending increases are tied to some combination of population growth and inflation (any further spending being put to referendum), completely discounting the need to accomodate other sources of cost increase.