Gaps
|
|
Obama
|
Romney
|
Gap
|
|
Gender
|
Women +8
|
Men +10
|
18
|
|
Age
|
18-29 +23
|
Over 65 +15
|
38
|
|
Income
|
< $36,000 +12
|
> $90,000 +8
|
20
|
|
Race
|
Non-White +61
|
White +17
|
78
|
|
Education*
|
Post-Grad +10
|
Some College +7
|
17
|
|
Religousness
|
Non-Religious +27
|
Highly Religious +23
|
50
|
|
Marital Status
|
Non-Married +18
|
Married +15
|
33
|
*High school or less was dead even
What does it all mean? Probably a lot of things.
Are all these gaps cause for concern? If you're a religious, white
male over 65 (or non-religious, non-white female under 30) should you even
bother learning about the candidates and casting an informed vote? Maybe
polling places should just have people fill out demographic boxes.
Could show that we're not all as objectively informed and
open minded as we think we are.
Are these groups voting in their self-interest (or perceived
self-interest)? I'm open to your interpretations.
Comments
Well, lets say that everyone is seeking results that are best for society and that they have brains that are completely rational, objective, and computer-like. In that case everyone would have the exact same opinion (all Romney or all Obama).
Now lets say one candidate wants to raise taxes on the wealthy and increase government benefits for the poor while the other wants the opposite. Since the case isn't entirely clear as to what will lead to a better result (or people disagree on what the "better result" looks like), opinions will be split.
But if we were all objective and open-minded, shouldn't opinion be split more randomly rather than along the lines of those who benefit from each policy (i.e. income gap)? My favorite example of this is the pot dispensaries in California who are leading the campaign against legalizing pot outright (as opposed to just medical marijuana).
To put it more concisely, if you can predict how a person will vote to a very high degree of accuracy by simply looking at 2 or 3 demographic factors, this seems like the hallmark of self-interest and ideology rather than objectivity.
I don't think this is necessarily the case because people can have preferences. Granted, many times political parties will agree that X result is the preferred outcome (more jobs) but disagree about the means to get to that outcome. But sometimes policies just have trade offs, and the parties may have different views about whether the trade offs are worth it.
This kind of goes back to Rawls and Nozick post. But, I think at its essence, Nozick argued that people owned themselves and the product of their labor. You can only have a legitimate claim on something if you create it or if you voluntarily trade for it. Then, in contrast, you have Rawls that said, basically, the property of the earth is owned by everyone jointly, and justice requires that the property is divided in a way that least the least of us the best off.
In some ways they are just two irreconcilable philosophies of what is justice. And it's not supprizing that we have philosophies similar to those around us,especially since they cannot be refuted by evidence.
But then I obviously I find one more persuasive than the other. As best I can tell, policy preference are a weird mixture of preference, beliefs, experience, and evidence.
I don't think this is necessarily the case because people can have preferences."
I was thinking more along the lines of everyone being completely identical (experiences, preferences, reasoning, etc.). Certainly in reality people have differing backgrounds, preferences, and the like.
"I'm also becoming more convinced that, (in the absence of a financial interest) most policy preferences are driven by philosophical questions."
I guess what I'm wondering is whether these differences of opinion are driven more by self (financial) interest or by philosophical questions. If it's the latter, why do opinions divide so cleanly along demographic lines? Is there something about a given demographic that predisposed one to a given philosophical stance?
Like how do you resolve the question of whether a Nozickian view of private property is correct. Do you own property because you mixed your labor with it, or because you came to get it through voluntary exchange? Or, does the property of the world belong to everyone to share and share alike? There are arguments on both sides, but ultimately it seems to me, the arguments come down to what offends your sensibilities. Preferences.
So maybe the question your getting at, is where do your preferences come from? Why are preferences not evenly distributed.
Part of it has to be what ideas you are exposed to. Your upbringing. Part of it is your experiences, and what things you view as problems. Part of it is probably peer pressure.
Hopefully some preferences also originate from logic, reflection and evidence, faith, etc.