> How is a system supposed to be beneficial for us all when the mathematics at its core don't actually consider societal benefit?
It isn't, but you could vote someone into power that makes it so. Theoretically, of course. In practice, it seems to me that people like a show of muscle and witty rhetoric more than a show of good math.
Most commonly, it's the poor that vote for the worst possible options which are projected to be the worst for the country (both rich and poor, and often disproportionately the poor). (Where "poor", to keep things in perspective, means someone living off of benefits or minimum wage, i.e. comfortable compared to the richest ten percent in an average African country.)
Not that the rich always vote cleverly, I don't have to look further than my own parents and grandparents to see that much, but e.g. christian parties are still better than voting for xenophobia and racism (e.g. Wilders), both if you follow the math on what immigration nets us and if you simply consider the amount of worldsuck.
It isn't, but you could vote someone into power that makes it so. Theoretically, of course. In practice, it seems to me that people like a show of muscle and witty rhetoric more than a show of good math.
Most commonly, it's the poor that vote for the worst possible options which are projected to be the worst for the country (both rich and poor, and often disproportionately the poor). (Where "poor", to keep things in perspective, means someone living off of benefits or minimum wage, i.e. comfortable compared to the richest ten percent in an average African country.)
Not that the rich always vote cleverly, I don't have to look further than my own parents and grandparents to see that much, but e.g. christian parties are still better than voting for xenophobia and racism (e.g. Wilders), both if you follow the math on what immigration nets us and if you simply consider the amount of worldsuck.