Voting for Self-Interest

One of the fundamental questions of modern politics is why people actually go out and vote. It is the issue that obsesses our political parties to the extent where, like Nu Labour in 1997, they almost cannot think of anything else (even core issues, like policy). So why do people vote?

The answer, as far as I can see, is naked self interest. People vote based on what is best for their families and what is best for them as an individual. In order for people to get off their butts and go out to vote for a particular party, that party has to appeal directly to their self interest.

You just have to look at post-war electoral history for good examples. In 1945 the voters loved Winston Churchill, but wanted the Welfare State as offered by Labour. Their self-interest over-rode their love of Churchill and their patriotic pride at having won the war. In the 1980’s, the working classes should have been deeply opposed to the extremely Conservative Thatcherite governments. But large numbers of them turned their back on the Labour and voted for the Tories. Why? Well, the Falkland’s War helped, but above all it was the right to buy council houses that allowed Thatcher to gain working class support throughout the 1980’s. Voting because of self-interest – the right to buy. And 1992 may be the best example of self interest voting. The Tories were tired, had been massively unpopular during the 1987 to 1992 administration and it appeared to be time for the Labour party appeared to be ready for power. And yet Major managed to win one of the largest popular votes in history and a slim working majority in the election. Why? Well, his relative humility next to the astounding arrogance of Kinnock will have helped, but ultimately it was the fear of how much a Labour government would cost. The “Double Whammy” posters about Labour tax increases and general economic performance, combined with John Smith’s publication of the Labour spending plans prior to the election, convinced the British public that a Kinnock administration would cost them more money. Whatever the thoughts on the Tories, naked self interest returned them to government. Vote Tory, and save money on a personal basis.

But what about those voters who genuinely do vote based on ideological concerns? Those in the middle class who vote Labour or Lib Dem, to help the less well off, for example? That sort of mind set does not seem to suggest self-interest. But, then again, what, fundamentally, is the motive for voting in this way? By voting for an ideology rather than for own personal gain is still based on self-interest. It is allowing the voter to feel good about themselves, to meet their ideological beliefs and feel “right on”*.

And what about those who don’t vote? Again, self-interest. The standard reason for not voting is “I won’t vote because it is not worth it.” The parties fail to provide some people to make the effort to go out and vote, so they don’t.

So, how can you apply these ideas to political parties today? Well, take a look at a couple of the right of centre political parties** in the UK today. UKIP are failing to meet this self interest requirement. The perception of UKIP is as a European focussed party. And, despite the ever increasing control that the EU has over the UK’s political system and economy, most people do not understand the effect the EU has on their lives. As an issue, it doesn’t appeal to their self-interest. So until UKIP can find someway of either making people understand how the EU affects them personally, or can find a way to appeal to voters’ self-interest in other ways, then they will remain a minor party. Sure, they do have other policies, but they need to communicate that message to voters and make them understand how voting for UKIP is a vote for their own benefit.

Likewise, Cameron’s Conservatives arguably do themselves a favour by carping on about the environment. It will strike a chord with the “right-on” centrist or left of centre voters mentioned above, and as long as they do not focus too much on the environmental tax side of things, they will not be having an impact on the self-interest of their right wing base.

However, the grammar schools issue may cost Cameron votes from the right, and may give UKIP the chance to snatch those votes. Sure, the Tory announcement (that they would support existing grammar schools but just not open any new ones) is in keeping with the Tory actions the last time they were in office. But the problem Cameron may have lies in the perceptions of the policies. Those who, through self-interest in their families well being, had an aspiration to send their kid to a grammar school and supported the Tories because of their perceived commitment to grammar schools, may find this policy announcement to be crucial in deciding who it is best to vote for in relation to their families. Their perception of the policy may be wrong, but Cameron’s surprisingly cack handed approach to announcing this policy may lose him some votes. And it gives UKIP the chance to capitalise on those votes if they can publicise their support for Grammar Schools effectively***.

Put simply, the grammar schools issue (or non-issue) gives UKIP the chance to appeal to the self-interest of some voters and take them from the Tories. And, likewise, the Tories have the chance to keep some voters from defecting to UKIP. All by appealing to people’s self interest on an issue that doesn’t really represent a change in policy. Parties succeed and fail based on whether they can appeal to that self-interest.

*I’m not being overly cynical about this group. As I have mentioned in the past, when it comes to voting, I am focussed on ideology rather than pragmatism. I am right of centre, but I will vote for the right of centre party that most closely resembles my ideological beliefs rather than the right of centre party that is most likely to win.
**i.e. the ones I have an interest in doing well at elections.
***I know there is something on the UKIP website but they need to do a lot more to publicise it than that.