2020 US General Election

[HCZ_Reborn]

Fun fact. This person can vote.

So?

The ultimate question is who is he responsible to, to justify his point of view and substantiate it


Yeah he’s enormously inarticulate but so what. A lot of people better able to express themselves than him had a similar cavalier attitude to proroguing parliament. It’s more evidence of hypocrisy than evidence of being too stupid to allow to vote. Unless someone has basic impairment of mental functions where they need a carer and such people aren’t inclined to vote anyway.

Things like vox pops are the equivalent of The Jeremy Kyle show, its function is to give people a false sense of self esteem by saying look at these people, at least I’m not like that.

But there isn’t always a strong indicator of intelligence and voting behaviour. There is between academic attainment because let’s be honest most universities tend to inculcate people into a certain way of thinking rather than teaching them how to think.

I could do an exercise called Downward Arrow to establish how rational the beliefs/opinions people hold that inform voting behaviour is

[Letters]

I didn’t say passing Exams was about intelligence, actually in many cases it’s about rote learning

Intelligence is a factor in most exams, but being able to perform under exam conditions is one too.

But no I’m sorry even the biggest champions of IQ tests will tell you they aren’t an objective measurement of intelligence.

They'll tell you they're not the be all and end all, but they're a pretty good measure of a certain type of intelligence.

You don’t know what we were arguing about?

Well, I started this by suggesting that people demonstrating they understand what they're voting for wouldn't be a bad idea.
You started making hysterical comparisons with people who didn't think that women should vote
You then went off in to tangents about intelligence - although I made it clear from the start I was NOT talking about an intelligence test. Oh and now I see you're talking about Eugenics. Dear me!

You have what we call a need to be right, and I know this because I have a need to be right…there’s a few others on here that fall into that category (Mac76, Niall_Quinn) which will ultimately make us go down a cul de sac than give an inch.

Fair up to a point, but I think I'm generally willing to move my position up to a point during a debate. I'll certainly fight my corner if I think I'm right. You're the one going off on irrelevant tangents and making ridiculous comparisons which straw man me.

The fact that you use Brexit as your paradigm case also suggests heavily that you think a better informed electorate would have rendered a different result. And if you tell me that’s not the case, I have to ask what in fact are you trying to remedy?
You take exception to my suggestion that the demand for change comes from the dispossessed. But that’s just a fact, people only want to change things if they see a problem.

I've articulated the problems.
I don't know whether fixing them would have yielded a different result in the Brexit referendum and I actually don't care whether it would have. I don't think the principle of people making a more informed choice is a bad one. Voting to Leave because of a coin flip, or because you hate the "bloody Frogs", and voting to Leave because you've looked in to and weighed up the arguments yield the same result, that doesn't make them all equally valid ways of arriving at the decision.
And having a more proportional system would result in a government that represents the views of "the people" more, it would encourage people to vote and to vote with their convictions because they'd know their views would be represented in some way.

Voting is a right, just as freedom is.

OK. But as I've patiently explained to NQ many times, freedom isn't absolute in the context of a society. There have to be constraints on that freedom in order for it to function. And with rights come responsibilities. We don't let under 18s vote, I guess because the thinking is they don't have the maturity to make an informed decision. Which seems pretty arbitrary but I guess you draw the line somewhere.

We don’t suspend someone’s purchasing rights because they keep paying more money for an inferior product.

But we do ask them to check a box to say they've read the Ts&Cs so we can claim they've understood what they were doing if they come back and say they've been conned. I don't see a problem with the principle of asking people to demonstrate they understand what they're voting for. I do concede implementing it in a fair way is problematic.

We don’t need this authoritarian invigilation which cannot be seen as anything other than an attempt to render a certain result.

You've claimed that a couple of times but failed to explain how that follows.

[HCZ_Reborn]

How many times have you read the terms and conditions before clicking yes I accept?. I’m guessing not many, for all we know we could have signed ourselves up for medical experimentation.

And it seems you read the terms and conditions about as thoroughly as you do what I wrote, the comparison to eugenics is saying that selective breeding is about as accurate a process as IQ tests for measuring intelligence in anything but the most general way. IQ as I keep saying is far more likely an expression of learning than natural intelligence.


Now you’ve said that it’s not an intelligence test, but other than asking people what they are voting for I’m not really sure what you’re looking for. And where would you even set the bar, you say you considered yourself relatively uninformed about the EU but were even the majority of the electorate more informed?. This then becomes an issue less of denying people the vote and more about making a point of explaining what it is you’re expecting people to vote for. Cameron is to blame here, he was so confident that he’d win he never set out either to Whitehall or the electorate what a possible Brexit would look like, and the leave campaign jumped on that to make incredibly vague promises.

The electorate in this country is when they don’t understand something minded to be conservative (which if anything is a sign of common sense instincts) they don’t generally go for radical options unless they are pissed off and feel like they’ve got nothing to lose.

Which is why the few referenda we’ve had in this country have gone with the status quo. Varadkar stepped down as Taoiseach as a result of losing two referendums where he wanted to change the Irish constitution…and people either didn’t understand or didn’t like the wording so they told him where to go.

Now that’s generally how referendums work, a government wants to make a big constitutional change and uses a plebiscite for public consent. Cameron did this the other way by holding a referendum for something he didn’t want to change.

As we are a representative democracy we don’t hold plebiscites often, the point is we delegate the decision making elsewhere. This would stand us out as very different from Switzerland where referenda are held all the time. But there’s no head of state of Switzerland, there’s a federal council made up of elected representatives from the different cantons.

My argument is that it’s on government to create greater engagement in the political process, but no governing party has the right incentives to do this.

[HCZ_Reborn]

What I mean by authoritarian invigilation. Is that people of all political stripes have the uncanny habit of siding with illiberal measures that they assume won’t affect them, you are hardly the first person to recommend this proposal yet with most of the people making the argument I see no real evidence of superior understanding.

Its the James O Brien mentality, the man so smart that he derides the culture war all the whilst freely engaging with it

[HCZ_Reborn]

Why are politicians getting involved in this England shirt thing

Yes yes big companies have gone woke, don’t really get it as the public at large generally gravitates between indifferent and resentful.

Probably because they do too much of their customer marketing on social media


But honestly, if you don’t like it don’t buy it. I don’t give a fuck what kit England players wear. I don’t like this season’s away kit I consider it a visceral assault on my eyes…but it is what it is. Wasn’t going to buy it anyway

[WMUG]

The third kit is fantastic though. So much so that I bought it, the first one I've bought since 2006.

[HCZ_Reborn]

The third kit is fantastic though. So much so that I bought it, the first one I've bought since 2006.

I don’t know why I posted that here

Yeah it’s ok, the green and blue kit. Unfortunately we’ve had some shit results with it. Lost to Lens and Fulham in that kit

Not anywhere near as good as last season’s charcoal coloured kit. Last away kit I bought was 04/05…the royal blue with the yellow piping outline.


Haven’t bought an Arsenal top at all in about 15 years though. Not even the cost, I just think you get past a certain age and it’s undignified

Of course ridiculous really as I’ve got the t-shirt with the Australian bloke being arrested and “this is democracy manifest” on it

[Letters]

How many times have you read the terms and conditions before clicking yes I accept?. I’m guessing not many, for all we know we could have signed ourselves up for medical experimentation.

Right. But that's sort of my point. No-one reads the Ts&Cs - if you had just sold your first born to the company and you hadn't read the Ts&Cs then that's on you. And secretly of course the organisations don't particularly want you to read the Ts&Cs. You probably won't understand most of them anyway. it's pages and pages of legalese. But let's say a company did think it was important to make sure you'd actually read them, one way to do that would be a quick quiz about the content.

And it seems you read the terms and conditions about as thoroughly as you do what I wrote, the comparison to eugenics is saying that selective breeding is about as accurate a process as IQ tests for measuring intelligence in anything but the most general way. IQ as I keep saying is far more likely an expression of learning than natural intelligence.

You do keep saying that! But repeating something doesn't make you right. And you're comparing two things so disconnected and so difficult to measure against each other it renders the comparison meaningless.

Now you’ve said that it’s not an intelligence test, but other than asking people what they are voting for I’m not really sure what you’re looking for.

Well. In the context of a EU referendum, how about a test which demonstrates some understanding of what the EU is, how it works and what the arguments for staying in it or leaving it are. In the context of a general election, how about a test which demonstrates some knowledge about what the main parties are standing for - who is promising to "get Brexit done", what are their policies on tax, education, the NHS, etc.

And where would you even set the bar

Well yes, that is the difficult bit. I wouldn't expect anyone to have detailed knowledge of the parties manifestos, but the high level policies - shouldn't someone know what they are before deciding who to vote for? It doesn't have to be a difficult test - you could publish the questions in advance like they do with the Theory Test when you're learning to drive. Then pretty much anyone could learn them by rote, as we've agreed that doesn't take intelligence. And in doing so it might cause them to learn something and inform their decision. If they pass the test and then still decide to flip a coin, or vote based on where their dog did a poo on the way to the polling station then...well, you can't stop people doing stupid things. But doing something to try and make sure people are vaguely informed before they do they make their mark doesn't feel like a terrible idea.
Implementing it would be problematic of course, that's the difficult but. But as a concept I think it's worth exploring.

And I'm not saying I'm particularly better informed than the average person, I'm not that interested in politics really. But a test would force me to engage more too. That's not a bad thing.

Cameron is to blame here, he was so confident that he’d win he never set out either to Whitehall or the electorate what a possible Brexit would look like, and the leave campaign jumped on that to make incredibly vague promises.

Well no argument there. He won the AV vote, and knew he would. So he went double or quits with Scottish Independence. So went for the treble and...yeah, it was a car crash. And I don't even mean the result. I mean, I'm a card-carrying Remoaner. But I'd have less of an issue thinking "I lost, get over it" if I thought it was a decision made in an informed way, rather than based on a lying bus and a population pretty ignorant of the issues at hand. The whole level of debate was depressingly poor.
Now the dust has settled I don't think I care so much that we've left. The sky hasn't fallen in and it hasn't really affected my day to day life. But if it was the right decision then we didn't arrive at it in a very satisfactory way.

My argument is that it’s on government to create greater engagement in the political process, but no governing party has the right incentives to do this.

I wouldn't disagree with that, although I don't think that's a contradiction to my thoughts.

[The Wengerbabies]

Fun fact. This person can vote.

The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Right. But that's sort of my point. No-one reads the Ts&Cs - if you had just sold your first born to the company and you hadn't read the Ts&Cs then that's on you. And secretly of course the organisations don't particularly want you to read the Ts&Cs. You probably won't understand most of them anyway. it's pages and pages of legalese. But let's say a company did think it was important to make sure you'd actually read them, one way to do that would be a quick quiz about the content.


You do keep saying that! But repeating something doesn't make you right. And you're comparing two things so disconnected and so difficult to measure against each other it renders the comparison meaningless.


Well. In the context of a EU referendum, how about a test which demonstrates some understanding of what the EU is, how it works and what the arguments for staying in it or leaving it are. In the context of a general election, how about a test which demonstrates some knowledge about what the main parties are standing for - who is promising to "get Brexit done", what are their policies on tax, education, the NHS, etc.


Well yes, that is the difficult bit. I wouldn't expect anyone to have detailed knowledge of the parties manifestos, but the high level policies - shouldn't someone know what they are before deciding who to vote for? It doesn't have to be a difficult test - you could publish the questions in advance like they do with the Theory Test when you're learning to drive. Then pretty much anyone could learn them by rote, as we've agreed that doesn't take intelligence. And in doing so it might cause them to learn something and inform their decision. If they pass the test and then still decide to flip a coin, or vote based on where their dog did a poo on the way to the polling station then...well, you can't stop people doing stupid things. But doing something to try and make sure people are vaguely informed before they do they make their mark doesn't feel like a terrible idea.
Implementing it would be problematic of course, that's the difficult but. But as a concept I think it's worth exploring.

And I'm not saying I'm particularly better informed than the average person, I'm not that interested in politics really. But a test would force me to engage more too. That's not a bad thing.


Well no argument there. He won the AV vote, and knew he would. So he went double or quits with Scottish Independence. So went for the treble and...yeah, it was a car crash. And I don't even mean the result. I mean, I'm a card-carrying Remoaner. But I'd have less of an issue thinking "I lost, get over it" if I thought it was a decision made in an informed way, rather than based on a lying bus and a population pretty ignorant of the issues at hand. The whole level of debate was depressingly poor.
Now the dust has settled I don't think I care so much that we've left. The sky hasn't fallen in and it hasn't really affected my day to day life. But if it was the right decision then we didn't arrive at it in a very satisfactory way.


I wouldn't disagree with that, although I don't think that's a contradiction to my thoughts.

But the fact is it is a contradiction to your thoughts, in a liberal democratic society it is not for the voter to prove they are worthy of the vote, it is for those who seek to be our representatives to prove that they are producing something that is worthy of being voted for.

There is no requirement for a government to put a plebiscite to the electorate, so when they decide to do so, the burden is on them to inform the electorate not for the electorate to inform themselves and show in an arbitrary test that they have understood.

Similarly when a government submits itself to the judgement of the electorate, it is they who have to prove themselves worthy of re-election not for the voter to prove competent enough to make the choice.


When you use vox pops as evidence for your argument, you demonstrate only that you have a very narrow understanding yourself. Voting is as much a gut reaction as it is a considered choice and that will be the same no matter how informed you are (or have the capacity to be)


IQ tests as I keep saying to you are variable, and IQ is not a constant…the fact is that our brains cells start dying off from our mid twenties so over time the IQ decreases anyway, much in the same way bone density decreases and causes us to shrink when we get much older.

I have no objection to a more informed electorate, my objection is that a right that is bestowed upon every Adult unless they do something heinous to have it removed, is not a privilege and it’s not something anyone should have to prove their worthiness for.

Your plan would unintentionally I’m sure have the effect of stratifying society. Between those allowed to vote and those who your arbitrary tests would disenfranchise….the social and cultural implications of that would be far greater than you imagine.
Our rights are determine by laws, and we are all (in principle) equal before the law, and stripped of suffrage we condemn people to elected dictatorship….bound by laws they have no say over.