"Though weirdly in modern American politics, there's some degree of inversion there, with the "coastal liberal elites" voting for "socialist" healthcare and the unemployed coal miner with black lung disease voting against it."

This is not the paradox that people think it is.

If you're a coastal, progressive elite, you've already gone "all in" on an urban, socialized, statist (for good or for bad) social arrangement. You've shifted towards a pole and you might as well keep doubling down on those strategies/policies.

But if you're rural (or, as is the case with most of red-state US, sort-of-semi-rural), you're not down that path at all.

There are costs as well as benefits to social benefits and welfare programs. Many of those costs may be intangible, but they are costs nonetheless. Consider: what if a very large portion of your self esteem and "face" was tied to being self-sufficient in certain realms ?

And so therefore, if you're not already at the urban-progressive-socialized pole of attraction, it makes sense that people resist the costs (and the benefits) of going down that road.

I suspect the two party system is responsible there. Lots of political viewpoints are all lumbered into one party, meaning that people with fiscally liberal/conservative preferences are lumped in with those with socially liberal/conservative preferences even if they're not the same crowd.

People aren't voting 'against their own interests' in the sense that they're stupid. They're voting for their own interests in a party which also has interests they're against because it's the only practical option. For example, someone who wanted less immigration and pro globalism rules (aka US protectionism) but then also thought things like equal rights for trans people and gay marriage and allowing abortion were the right would be up a creek without a paddle. Either option (with a decent chance of getting elected) is against their interests in some way.

Why do they want less immigration though? Is it because they believe that all the jobs were given away to other countries, even though US manufacturing and coal output are at or near historic highs?

Similarly do they want Obamacare repealed because it's a "disaster" and they've been promised better cheaper insurance by someone who doesn't actually have any kind of plan to deliver on that promise?

Is there only a debate about gay marriage at all because it's been turned into "an attack on traditional marriage"?

Are the liberals intentionally ruining the economy because they've joined the global warming religion that is basically an excuse for communism?

Some of this is ignorance and being conned, but some of it is stupidity as well. It's probably not wise to ignore that reality.

Democrats are on average poorer than Republicans, so, there may be some inversion, but the general principle still stands

Is that still true if you take African Americans out of the equation, I am genuinely curious?

Not necessarily true. There is a HUGE contingent of very poor, rural white Republicans. (e.g. the ones who voted for Dear Leader Trump). Just like there ARE wealthy African-Americans out there. African American does not necessarily equal poor in America.

If you take out African Americans and Hispanics then no.

Well, but then also in the general population republicans win everything, so one must be careful with that analysis.

This is overly generalizing a complex issue. In America, we have a two party system that has basically been taken over by lobbying and gerrymandering. Both sides are different socially, but identical fiscally. Propaganda has been spread massively, amplifying everyone's natural us-vs-them mentality. Plus the populist politician on the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders, was suppressed and basically not allowed to be the candidate. Our problems are a lot worse than "but poor people vote for the Bad Guys!"

"Both sides are [...] identical fiscally"

That's not true, and exactly the kind of misleading statement that leads to people voting against their own interests.

What matters is what the two sides accomplish, not what they say they're going to do. In the US, when the Republicans are in charge, Democrats hem and haw about how they need to do all this stuff differently from the Repubs, but when they're in charge, it doesn't happen. See Obama and friends in '08. Then with the presidential candidate, they chose the one with the $250,000 speaking fees at all the major banks instead of choosing the one who spoke of inequality in the country.

It doesn't sound like even you believe they are both the same, certainly you've provided no evidence that is the case in your response.

You'd just prefer if the Democrats were even more towards your preference on fiscal matters. I can agree with that, whether it would fly with the American voters sufficiently to overcome the rural/republican tilt is another matter entirely.

In my opinion, the Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin, focusing on divisive social issues and not on actually helping the country. What I would truly like is voter reform allowing for more than a two-party system. I feel that the current system leads naturally to corruption and favoring corporate needs.

I believe that all systems eventually lead to corruption. All rules can be gamed somehow, the quality of the ruleset is how long it takes for people to discover the necessary manipulations. Given the age, the US had a pretty good run.

Maybe occasional rewrites could be a solution, but if they happen without the customary devastating violence, I'm afraid that the rewrite would only further entrench existing corruption (and even devastating violence is far from a guarantee that this won't happen, quite the opposite actually).

Maybe have a dozen or so mixed teams create separate drafts in isolation, vote out the worst half and then select one of the remaining by chance? Something along these lines might greatly help rewriters to forget about their own personal or group interests for a while and focus on what would be good for society as a whole. It's most likely just a theoretical design, right?