2020 US General Election

[HCZ_Reborn]

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.

I think again you’ve mistaken what I mean by changing the system. Swapping out FPTP is an idea that people propose without putting any thought into it. I can’t even be bothered to get into it


But what I think we need to examine how much the party system is benefiting us in general. Instead of assessing the public for what they know or don’t, we should be doing this with political candidates, not only that but we need to break down the incentive structure to stop them becoming culture war talking heads as well as public servants.


There’s absolutely no good that comes from politicians being a constant presence on social media. There needs to be emphasis on moving them away from making appeals to emotions. There also needs to be more pressure put on the higher education system to ditch its activist academics in favour of those who champion free enquiry and critical thinking. I don’t care if they are left wing or right wing outside of their job.

Institutions cannot complain about the dissemination of fake news/false information whilst retaining its own biases.

But above all else, we need a system where politicians have to be honest about trade offs

[Letters]

Do you actually think FPTP is a good system? Or less bad than other systems, maybe?

[HCZ_Reborn]

Do you actually think FPTP is a good system? Or less bad than other systems, maybe?

I think it’s a better system than the d’hondt method, because at least you’re getting a government that is from a party that people voted for more than any other single party (well with the odd exception like 1951 and Feb 1974). Rather than the grubby backroom dealing that


The other problem is the list system in the d’hondt method which means you don’t have a local representative and that’s why it only works in countries like Germany which is a federalised democracy


And if you think people are too stupid to vote under the current system, what hope do you think they’d have with the Single Transferable vote.


Plus we had a referendum on the matter in 2011, if people overwhelmingly rejected a slight tweak like the Alternative vote (which actually I voted for) what chance they’ll vote for something completely different. Electoral system reform is an obsession amongst political hobbyists and the public in general, tend not to have a great interest in it


Oh well said I couldn’t be bothered to go into it, yet I did

[HCZ_Reborn]

I think you’ll have a record low turnout at the next election (which despite the constant speculation won’t be until October at the very earliest) and not because of the electoral system. I think many voters don’t feel any of the parties represent them nor do they have much trust or liking for these politicians.

I’m sure as hell not voting. For who? In many respects on social issues and foreign policy issues I align more with the Tories than Labour. But I’m at best indifferent about Brexit, they have absolutely done a horrendous job in government and they are about to enter into full blown civil war. And that’s Before you get to what happened when that dimwit Truss tried to institute full blown Reaganomics on the Uk economy (because apparently that’s proper Conservatism)


Although Starmer isn’t Corbyn, whilst the Left has gone down this cul de sac with social justice culture they absolutely can’t be trusted not to meddle with the law whilst showing blithe ignorance for the consequences. Especially given they won’t have a pot to piss in when it comes to spending.

[Letters]

I think it’s a better system than the d’hondt method, because at least you’re getting a government that is from a party that people voted for more than any other single party (well with the odd exception like 1951 and Feb 1974). Rather than the grubby backroom dealing that

My go to example is that election where UKIP got 12% of the popular vote and 1 MP. That can't be right. I've got no time for Farage but if 1 in 8 people across the country vote for a party they should surely have more representation that one MP out of over 600.
And a lot of that may have been a protest vote, but those only happen because of our system. Under a more proportional system we could vote for the party which best represents our views and know that our views would be represented in some way.
The main argument I see against it is local representation. I don't immediately have a clever solution to that but I can't believe it's impossible to solve that.

And if you think people are too stupid to vote under the current system, what hope do you think they’d have with the Single Transferable vote. Plus we had a referendum on the matter in 2011, if people overwhelmingly rejected a slight tweak like the Alternative vote (which actually I voted for) what chance they’ll vote for something completely different.

Yeah, that was the start of Cameron's ill-fated Referendum trilogy. He knew he could offer a Referendum on that voting system, safe in the knowledge that it was too complicated for most people to understand and therefore people would reject it. That doesn't make it a bad idea. The general population may not be that interested in other voting systems but that doesn't make them a bad idea either. As discussed, people are in general pretty dumb - look at the newspapers and TV shows which are popular.

Oh well said I couldn’t be bothered to go into it, yet I did

What's the alternative. Doing work?

[HCZ_Reborn]

Forever missing the point that the system is not there to have representatives proportional to who voted for them nationally, it’s about having representatives who received at least a plurality of the vote in each individual constituency. I don’t care if it’s UKIP/reform or whatever…I don’t get how 12% entitles you to anything.

If parties like that want to have candidates in parliament they need to do the leg work in individual constituencies.


First off In a democracy, by and large if the general public don’t want something and that thing isn’t necessary it’s probably best to conclude that it’s not a good idea politically to try and do that thing.

I’ve also set my stall out that for PR to work you would then need local parliaments otherwise you erase the function of MPs to be anything other than lobby fodder for the parties. We are already too much going that way under FPTP, too often MPs forget that their primary function is to listen to and where possible alleviate the concerns of their constituents (whether they voted for them or not).

What you’ve just said about the referendum in 2011 perfectly sums up where I take issue with a lot of what you’ve said, the attitude seems to be oh well people are stupid so we shouldn’t worry about consulting them about changes before we make them.

And I choose my words carefully, I’m saying your attitude seems to be rather than stating emphatically that’s what you are saying. But it comes back to a kind of elitist snobbishness, I don’t think it’s especially smart to be judging people for what they watch and read. I don’t understand the amount of adults that love Harry Potter but it’s personal choice. Plus people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, a lot of people with the kind of attitude you display show the same disdain towards people of faith.

Plus let’s be clear on how this debate started, the vox populi. I often say to people, have a microphone thrust in your face and be put on the spot and see how thoughtful and articulate you come across as.

[Letters]

Forever missing the point that the system is not there to have representatives proportional to who voted for them nationally.

Then it's a stupid system.
Will read the rest later.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Then it's a stupid system.
Will read the rest later.

Why is it a stupid system? The system is there to make sure that each individual has a local representative on the national level.

How much is someone selected from a list system going to give a fuck about your local issue if the vote that brought to their parliament was an amalgym of votes collected from all over the country.

[The Wengerbabies]

Can't be bothered to read but we should have PR. That Reform are polling at 15% projected to get 0 seats, while Lib Dems on 9% could get around 50 is a failure of democracy.

[Letters]

Forever missing the point that the system is not there to have representatives proportional to who voted for them nationally, it’s about having representatives who received at least a plurality of the vote in each individual constituency.

Right. Well as I've said, I think the idea of local representation is sound. The issue is it also ends up forming a government which is wildly unrepresentative of how "the people" vote, leaving the majority disenfranchised. One could make a reasonable argument that in a safe seat there's no point in voting at all unless you're voting for the incumbent.

I don’t care if it’s UKIP/reform or whatever…I don’t get how 12% entitles you to anything.

I think that's a strange attitude. If 12% of people - basically 1 in 8 - across the country believe "a thing" then surely that view should have some representation in the parliament which makes our laws.

If parties like that want to have candidates in parliament they need to do the leg work in individual constituencies.

I'm sure they are doing that but it's hard to get a foothold with FPTP. A low but significant support across the country gets you no representation at all. That seems wrong to me.

What you’ve just said about the referendum in 2011 perfectly sums up where I take issue with a lot of what you’ve said, the attitude seems to be oh well people are stupid so we shouldn’t worry about consulting them about changes before we make them.

I don't think calling me snobbish is entirely unfair. I do have that tendency. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I mean, people aren't that bright on average. And it's not just about intelligence, it's about experience and expertise too. I like to think I'm a bit of a clever clogs but while I came to a view in the Brexit debate I wouldn't pretend to be an expert. I remember some talk back in the day about a referendum on joining the Euro and my thought was "what the hell are you asking me for?! I got a D in Economics!".
You voted for the AV system in 2011 - I did too. Because it yields more representative results and to me that can only be a good thing. So why would anyone have voted against it? Maybe because people don't like change, but I suspect the fact it was a bit complicated and a lot of people didn't really understand it was a factor.
So yeah, I do think you need to be a bit careful what you ask "the people", because "the people" are on average aren't really qualified to make decisions on complicated topics.

Plus let’s be clear on how this debate started, the vox populi. I often say to people, have a microphone thrust in your face and be put on the spot and see how thoughtful and articulate you come across as.

Well, I'd like to think I'd do a little better than the people in that video. I suspect most people would. I posted that video somewhere else and someone there pointed out it was a bit unfair as they'd probably interviewed quite a few people and then cherry picked the stupidest for a cheap laugh. It's a fair criticism. But it seems increasingly likely that Trump is going to get in again which makes me think those sorts of views aren't that uncommon. Although I would note I don't think we are as polarised over here as the US population seem to be.