|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
It might be different in the US if in places like Scandinavia, the general population are big proponents of authoritarianism and social justice. I'm not sure that's true though.
How did you draw that conclusion? My personal opinion is that those who are better off are able to behave altruistically and not just struggle to make ends meet. Hence, you're poor you vote for anyone that you perceive could make your family's life easier. You're well off and doing fine, why not try to help others too, at least to soothe your conscience and to be able to say that's how you roll.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
In the US, those who are big proponents of authoritarianism and social justice tend to be people who don't bear a more full weight of their actions and who tend towards ignorance of and insulation/isolation from the real world.
So what you mean is that lazy and poor people support leftist views since they don't have skin in the game? Wouldn't they be the beneficiaries of social welfare policies, aren't you leaving out half of Taleb's definition of SITG, which is as much incentives and disincentives?
FWIW, our previous parliament elections had the following results:
Keskusta (centrist, mainly rural folks vote for them) 21.1%
Kokoomus (right wing) 18.2%
Perussuomalaiset (some fucked up nationalist socialist mixed with right wing rhetoric) 17.7%
SDP (social democratic party) 16.5%
Vihreät (the green party) 8.5%
Vasemmisto (left wing) 7.1%
RKP (the swedish party, yeah ikr) 4.9%
Kristilliset (christian democratic party, zealots) 3.5%
Piraattipuolue (the pirate party, lol) 0.8%
If we look at just the capital city, things are quite different, here's top3:
Kokoomus 26%
Vihreät 18.8%
SDP 15.5%
So, from what I understand, not too surprising that the right wing, eco-hippies and social democrats dominate the major cities, the overall winner pigfarmer-Keskusta was 7th among city folk.
|
Reply With Quote