2020 US General Election

[HCZ_Reborn]

https://x.com/trumpdailyposts/status...k_DvSqUkaQFrjw


Donald Trump gives off the awful impression of understanding less about his country’s founding documents and its history than I do.
I love the incongruity of shoving in secular documents like the constitution and the bill of rights in with the Bible.
Though would be interesting if he tries to open up the whole should kids be made to take the pledge of allegiance in schools again
His problem is as someone who clearly isn’t religious at all, he still feels the need to present himself as such to the Christian conservatives. He really needn’t bother, they in no way think he’s a holy man…but they consider him a necessary evil to take on the ungodly Antichrists of the liberal establishment

As a salesman a part of you has to believe in the product you’re selling and that’s why he’s so confident and effusive at selling himself. Here? He just looks like going through the motions.

[Letters]

His problem is as someone who clearly isn’t religious at all, he still feels the need to present himself as such to the Christian conservatives. He really needn’t bother, they in no way think he’s a holy man…but they consider him a necessary evil to take on the ungodly Antichrists of the liberal establishment

Dunno. I've seen quite a few people who think he's God's choice to lead America. Maybe they're outliers.
Whenever anyone posted that on FB a mate from church would comment "by their fruit..." (See Matthew 7:16-20)

[HCZ_Reborn]

Dunno. I've seen quite a few people who think he's God's choice to lead America. Maybe they're outliers.
Whenever anyone posted that on FB a mate from church would comment "by their fruit..." (See Matthew 7:16-20)

Oh they do, but that doesn’t mean they think he’s a religious/god fearing man. They think he’s been sent down in the shape of this venal sinner to punish their true enemies.
They don’t think he’s a good guy, they think it’s a recognition of you need wickedness to beat wickedness

The whole I could shoot someone on fifth Avenue and not lose any votes actually shows that Trump is kind of aware of this. That he’s their avenging angel even if he takes on demonic form

[Letters]

No what I’ve said is that either you need rigorous test that would risk disenfranchising people or the test would be absolutely pointless as a way of determining whether people were informed on a meaningful enough level to vote one way or the other.

Well, that's a reasonable position. A test too stringent would disenfranchise too many people. A test too easy would possibly be meaningless.
But my gut feeling is that too many people go into the ballot box without even knowing the basics of what the parties are standing for. I regard that as a bad thing.

And no there is no responsibility that comes from voting, no one not you or I or anyone else has to justify how we voted.

Those two things are not contradictory. You don't have to justify how you vote but of course doing so carries some responsibility because votes have consequences.

The wrong choice does not exist in Democracy (neither does the right choice) there’s no objective evaluation.

Agreed. But someone should know what they're voting for, or against. It they know that and still decide to flip a coin then...whatever. You can't control that.
But as I said while an informed vote doesn't guarantee what I would regard as a sensible decision, an uninformed one does guarantee an uninformed vote.

How do you even know how many people who googled information about the EU had voted? The Google search was in response to the news that we’d voted to leave the European Union. They may have been remain voters who wanted to know what this meant in real terms or non voters.

Well, maybe. But the EU vote was not undertaken by a well informed population - I'd be saying that whatever the result. And the level of debate was lamentably poor. If it is the job of politicians to inform people then the were doing a bloody awful job of it.

The most politically uninformed don’t tend to vote to begin with, because they have little or no interest in the political process.

Well, possibly.

Why on earth would you have a test based on a party manifesto….have you read a party’s election manifesto from cover to cover, plus would this demonstrate knowledge or rote learning?

Rote learning is a way of gaining knowledge. I learned my a, b, c's by rote learning as did we all. But I can apply that knowledge to, say, put a list in alphabetical order.
And I'm not expecting anyone to have read the manifesto cover to cover. High level of knowledge about tax policy, defence plans, NHS, welfare should be enough.

Knowing what the Tories tax pledges are, won’t give you any greater understanding of whether they will benefit you individually.

Well, that should be an exercise for the reader. But knowing what these policies are is no bad thing.

Imagine there was a referendum on capital punishment resulting from a future government leaving the ECHR, what knowledge do you need to show then, how the knot of the noose is placed adjacent to the jaw bone of the condemned in order to bring about the hangman’s fracture from the drop,
Or is it purely a judgement call based on whether you believe certain crimes deserve death

That's a pretty specific example and I agree in the context of a referendum it would be less obvious what any test should ask.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Well, that's a reasonable position. A test too stringent would disenfranchise too many people. A test too easy would possibly be meaningless.
But my gut feeling is that too many people go into the ballot box without even knowing the basics of what the parties are standing for. I regard that as a bad thing.


Those two things are not contradictory. You don't have to justify how you vote but of course doing so carries some responsibility because votes have consequences.


Agreed. But someone should know what they're voting for, or against. It they know that and still decide to flip a coin then...whatever. You can't control that.
But as I said while an informed vote doesn't guarantee what I would regard as a sensible decision, an uninformed one does guarantee an uninformed vote.


Well, maybe. But the EU vote was not undertaken by a well informed population - I'd be saying that whatever the result. And the level of debate was lamentably poor. If it is the job of politicians to inform people then the were doing a bloody awful job of it.


Well, possibly.


Rote learning is a way of gaining knowledge. I learned my a, b, c's by rote learning as did we all. But I can apply that knowledge to, say, put a list in alphabetical order.
And I'm not expecting anyone to have read the manifesto cover to cover. High level of knowledge about tax policy, defence plans, NHS, welfare should be enough.


Well, that should be an exercise for the reader. But knowing what these policies are is no bad thing.



That's a pretty specific example and I agree in the context of a referendum it would be less obvious what any test should ask.

- Your gut feeling? So your argument is that it’s bad if too many people vote using purely gut feeling yet your gut feeling makes an argument for making people jump through hoops in order to vote


- Not necessarily, rote learning is as much about basic recall. You could memorise the ingredients to Il Timpano, it doesn’t give you any real great understanding of how to make it. A political party could promise to lower taxes and increase spending, knowledge about their manifesto won’t give you wisdom to understand that the two things in conjunction probably won’t work.


- The referendum on EU membership was not something the Tories had to do. Plus it’s one of those examples where you can inform people as much as you like, it will still become a proxy ballot - in this instance dissatisfaction with the status quo and competing cultural values.


The other point which I’ve tried to get across but obviously need to do so explicitly is at a time when trust in government and institutions is at an all time low. What on earth do you think this would do about the perception of elitist snobbery. And if you can’t trust a government or political party or political campaign to be honest, why on earth would anyone trust these exams to be fair and not simply engineered to disenfranchise undesirable voters.

As I’ve said repeatedly if you want a more informed electorate, the approach is the carrot not the stick. Positive incentives to engage in the political process and understand more about it. Although I don’t believe it should have anything more than advisory power…I think citizens assemblies would be a better idea in getting that engagement.
That and I think introducing civics lessons into the education system, but requiring voters pass an exam to qualify for a basic democratic right…no never.

.

[Letters]

- Your gut feeling? So your argument is that it’s bad if too many people vote using purely gut feeling yet your gut feeling makes an argument for making people jump through hoops in order to vote

Now you're getting it!



I don't think the thought that the population are poorly educated and informed is particularly controversial.

A political party could promise to lower taxes and increase spending, knowledge about their manifesto won’t give you wisdom to understand that the two things in conjunction probably won’t work.

Well, sure. I've acknowledged that there's a difference between knowledge and understanding. And I'm only suggesting testing the first of those, testing the latter would be far more involved and would disenfranchise people.

The other point which I’ve tried to get across but obviously need to do so explicitly is at a time when trust in government and institutions is at an all time low. What on earth do you think this would do about the perception of elitist snobbery.
And if you can’t trust a government or political party or political campaign to be honest, why on earth would anyone trust these exams to be fair and not simply engineered to disenfranchise undesirable voters.

Well this is a fair point. Although as I said the test shouldn't be set by parliament, just based on their manifestos.
I don't think this will ever be implemented, I don't think it serves the government's interests to have a better informed public.

As I’ve said repeatedly if you want a more informed electorate, the approach is the carrot not the stick. Positive incentives to engage in the political process and understand more about it. Although I don’t believe it should have anything more than advisory power…I think citizens assemblies would be a better idea in getting that engagement.
That and I think introducing civics lessons into the education system, but requiring voters pass an exam to qualify for a basic democratic right…no never.

Well, that all sounds reasonable.
There may be better ways to better inform the public, and your ideas sound good.
But you sure as shit can't rely on politicians to do it.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Now you're getting it!



I don't think the thought that the population are poorly educated and informed is particularly controversial.


Well, sure. I've acknowledged that there's a difference between knowledge and understanding. And I'm only suggesting testing the first of those, testing the latter would be far more involved and would disenfranchise people.


Well this is a fair point. Although as I said the test shouldn't be set by parliament, just based on their manifestos.
I don't think this will ever be implemented, I don't think it serves the government's interests to have a better informed public.


Well, that all sounds reasonable.
There may be better ways to better inform the public, and your ideas sound good.
But you sure as shit can't rely on politicians to do it.

- It’s all relative, are British voters poorly informed compared to Americans, Canadians, Australians…or even those lot on the continent are they less informed than they were thirty odd years ago. Can you prove a link between this belief that you have and voting behaviour. Plus a belief doesn’t need to be controversial to be accurate. The one thing I’ve learnt in this life is that the biggest gulfs exist between perception and fact.

- Without understanding, you’re not really achieving anything….not that I’m at all clear what you want to achieve to begin with. What’s it the guy who gets burnt alive in Game of Thrones said “The freedom to make my own mistakes is all I ever wanted”


- I don’t think it will be implemented because it’s never a good idea to insult the electorate


- An assessment would have to be passed by an act of parliament, and just like the government did with the wording of the EU referendum question they would be in charge of deciding what the test would be. The idea that an independent commission would be given autonomy to draw up one that would need to be ratified by a government is a nonsense

[HCZ_Reborn]

Plus a question now, has your life been significantly and adversely affected by a decision taken by fellow citizens at the ballot box…by voting for something you yourself voted against because you consciously knew it would negatively affect you. And I don’t mean annoyed you by voting for something you thought silly/unwise but something that profoundly affected your life ?

[Letters]

It’s all relative, are British voters poorly informed compared to Americans, Canadians, Australians…or even those lot on the continent

I don't think that's really relevant. My dad, in a rare moment of wisdom, one said to me "You should compare yourself with the best, not the worst" (we were talking about corruption in government and I noted that we were better than the Italians. That was his response).
And it's not relevant whether I have personally been adversely affected by decisions "the people" have made. The cost of living crisis has affected everyone. The running of the NHS in to the ground has affected a lot of people. I'm not personally reduced to using food banks or choosing between "eating and heating", but lots of people have been. Would a better informed public have made "better" decisions which wouldn't have resulted in these things? It's impossible to say, but obviously the ideal is that people are better informed.

are they less informed than they were thirty odd years ago.

I'm going to say yes, but it's quite hard to evidence. But my basis for saying yes is the level of political debate. I saw a video recently of a Kennedy/Nixon debate. It was respectful and articulate. Look at the debates now, full of shouting over each other, blatant lies which go unchallenged and trash talk. And the media is increasingly clickbait with misleading headlines. It feels like that has all got worse over the last few decades, which surely leads to people not being as well informed. I think the internet is a factor too. Now anyone can find a news source which panders to their own particular biases. It has led to people being far more polarised. In 2016 "post-truth" was the word of the year, we are increasingly living in a world where people don't care about objective truth.

Can you prove a link between this belief that you have and voting behaviour.

How would I do that? We both agree that a better informed population is a good thing. It doesn't guarantee people will vote in a more considered way but it can't hurt.

Without understanding, you’re not really achieving anything….not that I’m at all clear what you want to achieve to begin with.

Similar argument to above. Knowledge doesn't guarantee understanding, but a lack of knowledge guarantees a lack of understanding.
What I'm trying to achieve is a better informed and engaged population. People should be encouraged to inform themselves before they vote. You may object to my thought - which is a bit more than encouragement - and that's fine. You've suggested some other ways of encouraging people which make sense to me.

[HCZ_Reborn]

As a counsellor I’m very attentive to when people use modal verbs like should and must, who’s should is this, who’s must is this.

I think a more informed population would be desirable but I place no particular emphasis on it as an imperative. It would be nice if people chose to be more engaged, it would be better still if politicians were incentivised to facilitate that engagement. But the choice is key, people will choose to learn more if they want to learn more not by being compelled to.

Ignore is a choice

Your imperative seemingly comes from the belief that an uninformed populace has the potential to cause harm with their voting choice. My contention is that if the Face Eating Leopard party appears on the ballot, then it becomes a legitimate choice. Plus in actuality despite the histrionics, people don’t die as a direct result of how other people vote. So again I say how much thought someone put into their vote is really no one’s business

I chose those countries because as English speaking countries it’s easier to discern the relative levels of ignorance. But for your Dad’s sage counsel to have any relevance to this situation it would be helpful if you were able to point towards a country which you think is clearly better informed even if just for something to aspire to.