2020 US General Election

[Letters]

It’s not about intelligence though, as mr sink the boats pointed out you can find vox pop wallies all over the spectrum. It’s about groupthink and the need to take the uncompromising positions to feel part of an in group.

With these people, they’ll forgive Trump virtually anything because they hate the people he hates…it’s really as simple as that. The religious zealots know Trump is about as Christian as I am Vegan…but they know he will do the things they want and it will piss off the people they consider ungodly

It's not about intelligence, but it is about clear thinking (a lamentably uncommon skill these days, it seems), and a general awareness of what's going on. The principle of democracy is that everyone has a right to an opinion (which is correct), and that everyone's opinion is equally valid (which is demonstrably very uncorrect). Why did I get a vote on Brexit? Obviously I can form an opinion but I wouldn't pretend to be an expert in any of this. Why are the proper idiots - people who bang on about the "bloody frogs" or who still believe The Empire should be a thing - why do they get a vote?

I used to joke about there being a test before you can vote. I am becoming increasingly serious about it. And I don't mean an intelligence test. But holy shit is it so unreasonable to expect people to be able to roughly identify the policies of the major parties before they get to vote for one of them?

Although the cult of personality is more of a thing these days I do think Trump is a bit of an outlier in his cult like following. I have conceded in my head that he's going to be president again and I don't actually think the world will explode. It didn't before when he was in. I have been reminded recently of the utter bullshit he spouts constantly though and I'm not exactly looking forward to another 4 years of that. Sure, he's not our president but the US are big on the global stage and you can't help but hear about it.

[HCZ_Reborn]

It's not about intelligence, but it is about clear thinking (a lamentably uncommon skill these days, it seems), and a general awareness of what's going on. The principle of democracy is that everyone has a right to an opinion (which is correct), and that everyone's opinion is equally valid (which is demonstrably very uncorrect). Why did I get a vote on Brexit? Obviously I can form an opinion but I wouldn't pretend to be an expert in any of this. Why are the proper idiots - people who bang on about the "bloody frogs" or who still believe The Empire should be a thing - why do they get a vote?

I used to joke about there being a test before you can vote. I am becoming increasingly serious about it. And I don't mean an intelligence test. But holy shit is it so unreasonable to expect people to be able to roughly identify the policies of the major parties before they get to vote for one of them?

Although the cult of personality is more of a thing these days I do think Trump is a bit of an outlier in his cult like following. I have conceded in my head that he's going to be president again and I don't actually think the world will explode. It didn't before when he was in. I have been reminded recently of the utter bullshit he spouts constantly though and I'm not exactly looking forward to another 4 years of that. Sure, he's not our president but the US are big on the global stage and you can't help but hear about it.

For me the type of people who talk about tests to determine ability to vote are usually the type of people who you ideally wouldn’t want to vote either. No more capable of critical thought than the people they deride (usually as a way of falsely making themselves seem intelligent)

It’s also the kind of mentality that denied women suffrage. The problem with an election like Biden vs Trump is less about voters at a national election and more about the process by which candidates are chosen to begin with. The Democratic nomination is definitely a closed shop, and it’s actually largely impossible for an outsider to win the nomination which even though I’m not a fan of his…probably meant that Bernie Sanders was denied the chance to be the nominee because the party machinery was against him.

Trump on the Republican side? Well ostensibly good because he was nominated despite being an outsider against the GOP establishment. But at the same time he was the beneficiary of the tea party movement which was tacitly supported by the Republican establishment as well as the birther movement which Trump himself sponsored heavily.

But either way the problem is that you’ve got party grassroots people who are far more partisan and tribal than your average American voter choosing the nominee.

Plus the vox pops clip is a sign of the growing polarisation. If you want to group Americans into conservatives and liberals it may be overly simplistic but it’s not entirely unrealistic….and it’s not just that the two groups don’t like each other. They live completely seperate lives and therefore they can otherise each other and their understanding of each other is funnelled through the borderline parodies that get shown on late night talk shows.


For all the problems Britain has, and the amount of growing tribalism…we haven’t reached that extent here. Outside of social media I don’t think we are anywhere near as inclined to hate each other for having different political opinions mainly because we haven’t become so segregated in our lives that we can’t see beyond that.

And I think that’s despite the effort made by politicians and grifting commentators on both sides to crowbar us apart

[HCZ_Reborn]

Case in point, in this country it’s widely accepted even by the most right wing of individuals that Labour is going to win the next election. They aren’t especially happy about it, and they draw different conclusions than I might about why this is going to happen (although we largely both agree that it’s more about the Tories being good than Labour being liked)

In America, although there’s a difference of extreme…on both sides there’s now a feeling that if their side doesn’t win that there is evidence of chicanery on the other side. Whilst Trump explicitly brought this front and centre, it was going on beneath the surface long before him. The birther movement was simply a way of saying Obama hadn’t won the election legitimately.

Trump was called illegitimate by Clinton (although she did at least concede the election) and even small things like Karl Rove making himself look like an idiot on Fox News by claiming the decision desk shouldn’t have called Ohio for Obama when it did in 2012….and trying to make it look like due diligence because the networks like CNN had mistakenly called Florida for Gore in 2000 when polls hadn’t even closed in the conservative panhandle region of the state.

But online you saw it all the time, partisan conspiracies about how one side had stolen it from the other.

I’m sure the institutions and what’s nebulously called the mainstream media hasn’t helped, but politicians on both sides have instituted and created this rift to the point where as I said yesterday political allegiance which for me is dumb enough anyway is more akin to being a supporter of a sports team.

[Letters]

It’s also the kind of mentality that denied women suffrage.

No it isn't

[HCZ_Reborn]

No it isn't

It exactly is, the reason given for women not to be allowed to vote was because they were considered too hysterical to make rational decisions.

[Letters]

It exactly is, the reason given for women not to be allowed to vote was because they were considered too hysterical to make rational decisions.

OK. So a test would sort that out and test that thesis, wouldn't it?

To deny all women/blacks/homosexuals/<add your own category of people here> a vote is to claim that there is something inherent about that category of people which means they're not competent to vote.

That is absolutely not the same as saying that in order to vote you should have to demonstrate basic knowledge about what you're voting for. And, again, I'm not talking about an intelligence test. But if someone has no idea who the party leaders are, what they're standing for, what's in their manifesto...on what basis are they voting then?

No-one thinks that "being a human" is the only criteria for being able to vote. The categories of people who can vote has been expanded over time - it used to just be property owners. Even now only people over 18 can vote. Why can't under 18s vote? It can't be true that everyone under 18 is incompetent to. I'm sure a lot of 16 and 17 year olds know more about politics than me. So why can't they? Policies which governments make don't just affect adults. Prisoners can't vote. Non-citizens can't vote - so my German mate who has lived here for getting on 30 years but has never wanted to have UK citizenship can't vote in a General Election even though he's been living in and paying taxes in this country all this time.

You haven't actually made any counter-argument to my suggestion, you've just incorrectly conflated it with archaic views about whether certain categories of people can vote. Saying "only men should be able to drive" is absolutely not the same as saying "there should be a test before someone can drive".

[HCZ_Reborn]

OK. So a test would sort that out and test that thesis, wouldn't it?

To deny all women/blacks/homosexuals/<add your own category of people here> a vote is to claim that there is something inherent about that category of people which means they're not competent to vote.

That is absolutely not the same as saying that in order to vote you should have to demonstrate basic knowledge about what you're voting for. And, again, I'm not talking about an intelligence test. But if someone has no idea who the party leaders are, what they're standing for, what's in their manifesto...on what basis are they voting then?

No-one thinks that "being a human" is the only criteria for being able to vote. The categories of people who can vote has been expanded over time - it used to just be property owners. Even now only people over 18 can vote. Why can't under 18s vote? It can't be true that everyone under 18 is incompetent to. I'm sure a lot of 16 and 17 year olds know more about politics than me. So why can't they? Policies which governments make don't just affect adults. Prisoners can't vote. Non-citizens can't vote - so my German mate who has lived here for getting on about 30 years but has never wanted to have UK citizenship can't vote in a General Election even though he's been living in and paying taxes in this country all this time.

You haven't actually made any counter-argument to my suggestion, you've just incorrectly conflated it with archaic views about whether certain categories of people can vote. Saying "only men should be able to drive" is absolutely not the same as saying "there should be a test before someone can drive".

I’ve largely ignored your argument because a) what you think is the problem actually isn’t b) I’m failing to understand what kind of test you think would suffice to determine ability to vote in a society where the problem is increased polarisation.


A driving test which you use as an example is set on objective criteria of competency, there is no such criteria when it comes to political opinions. Having knowledge of what you’re voting for, doesn’t guarantee what you might consider a rational approach to deciding the best way to decide how to solve it.

[Letters]

I’ve largely ignored your argument

I can tell. And you've completely misrepresented it.

Having knowledge of what you’re voting for, doesn’t guarantee what you might consider a rational approach to deciding the best way to decide how to solve it.

Correct. People can have that knowledge and still make (what I may regard as) stupid decisions. But you've yet to explain why asking people to demonstrate that basic knowledge is a bad idea. All you've done is make silly comparisons which don't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

[HCZ_Reborn]

I can tell. And you've completely misrepresented it.


Correct. People can have that knowledge and still make (what I may regard as) stupid decisions. But you've yet to explain why asking people to demonstrate that basic knowledge is a bad idea. All you've done is make silly comparisons which don't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

If you’d bothered to read what I wrote, I actually went into detail to explain what the actual problem is and how this whole test would be a complete waste of time as the issue isn’t about intelligence or knowledge. And how practically anyone who you laugh at in these videos to make yourself superior would probably have no problem whatsoever passing the test by doing a bit of background revising and how others who think they are so much smarter probably would fail the test going only to prove the Dunning-Kruger rule.

If you seriously wanted to make a difference you could perhaps introduce a civics component into the education system. But if you want to change things for the better in this country you have to look at the system rather than blaming people. A system that absolutely gives the political class the wrong incentives, and encourages them to exacerbate division.

[Letters]

But if you want to change things for the better in this country you have to look at the system rather than blaming people. A system that absolutely gives the political class the wrong incentives, and encourages them to exacerbate division.

Well that's certainly all true.
And just to be clear, while I do think my idea has some merit I can also see it's problematic.
It's [B]not[/I] like saying "women shouldn't be able to vote", but making a test which fairly tests people's knowledge would be difficult if not impossible. But I don't think forcing people to put some effort into thinking about who to vote for is inherently a bad idea. Even if the end result is still "Trump/Boris good!" and they vote that way anyway.

I think fixing the FPTP voting system would go a long way to improving things. Right now too many people in safe seats are effectively disenfranchised and the whole system makes tactical voting the only option for a lot of people.