2020 US General Election

[Letters]

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

You can say it as often as you like, doesn't make you right. Votes, and the results of them, have consequences. Some of those consequences cause deaths. We left the EU because of a vote. We can debate whether that was a good or bad thing ad nauseum, and people have, but there are clear consequences to that decision. If the Face Eating Leopard party win an election then people are going to get their faces eaten by a leopard. Isn't that going to affect people? Have people not died as a result of a lack of NHS funding? Do government not make polices about stuff like that? You can argue about whether this is a "direct" result, but there's a pretty clear chain of cause and effect there.

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.

My dad's wisdom isn't really relevant to this situation and actually any comparison is a bit irrelevant.
It doesn't matter if we are the most educated, best informed country in the world. The only relevant thing is are we educated and informed enough and, if not, what can we do to improve that. Noting that other countries are worse (I think the US probably are although it's hard to objectively measure this) isn't really relevant. You could get a D in an exam and be top of your class, that doesn't make D a good result.

As I've said multiple times, I'm not saying this is a particularly good idea. I can see issues with it. But sometimes I look at how people vote or people's opinions and can't help thinking "holy shit, there should be a test!". But some of your suggestions as to how to encourage people to inform themselves may be more practical.

[HCZ_Reborn]

But again you miss the point, no one is obligated to consider the impact their vote has on other people nor should they be. It’s a matter of personal preference. And to compare what is a direct consequence of poor behaviour like poor driving which has a far higher risk of directly negative consequences is foolish. Plus with most votes, whether it’s Brexit or even election votes the impact it has on other people is unforseeable (the referendum didn’t decide which manner of post Brexit deal was agreed with the EU)
There’s a thing called Loser’s consent and accepting the risk that when people choose something it might not be the same thing you’d choose…and I think too many people seem unwilling to accept that.

The NHS argument doesn’t work because there’s no evidence of a lack of funding for that public service (actually it’s one of the few public services that has been consistently well funded and was insulated from austerity). The problem with the health service is it was set up to be a way of rationed health care, it simply cannot function a) as a result of the miserable failure that is the Trust system - which absolutely wasn’t in New Labour’s manifesto and b) it’s treated as a sacred institution when in fact we should be on an insurance based system and the reason we aren’t is because people see that system and think of America rather than France or Germany.

You can argue a better informed public might not have that belief, but I don’t need to tell you that belief and faith run deeper than fact.

It is absolutely relevant if you’re making the statement we are not informed enough, this is not a statement I believe you’ve even sufficiently evidence apart from vox pops and google searches. Your argument comes from the belief that if there is any percentage of uninformed people voting that’s not acceptable but at the same time you seemingly agree that there’s no way to make 100% of the population sufficiently informed.

So it’s for you to set out the criteria for what you consider to be acceptable level of people who you deem to be sufficiently informed.

And with all these things it’s interesting that the one thing lacking from the types of proposal you make is intellectual curiosity. If the Face Eating Leopard party existed and people voted for it, why do you suppose that might be…do you think it would purely be a result of failure to comprehend that Leopards do in fact eat faces or in their own risk/reward analysis they determined the potential reward to outweigh the risk. Or that things are already so bad that having one’s face eaten is not that dire a consequence


Because actually there’s far more evidence that what you might consider unwise decisions being taken by the electorate during times of uncertainty and disillusion. Hitler and the Nazis as I’m sure you know came to power by the ballot box (they became the largest party in Germany as a result of the plurality of the vote) this probably wouldn’t have happened if not for the Wall Street crash because Weimar Germany had started to recover in the mid to late 20s.

A lot of people felt…well they won’t be as extreme as they come across when they are in power, and it’s better that than let the country fall into the hands of the communists

The point is you can firewall the system as much as you like. You have to accept that other people having the same freedoms you do, comes with risk.

[Letters]

Godwin's Law

Took us a while, but we got there.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Godwin's Law

Took us a while, but we got there.

Godwin’s Law would apply if I suggested your plan was akin to Nazi Germany…the point of it is to suggest that I am using it as hyperbole. Where as actually I’m just using it as historical example of how bad shit/bad decisions are made when people feel unhappy or desperate more than simply not knowing enough.

[Letters]

But again you miss the point, no one is obligated to consider the impact their vote has on other people nor should they be. It’s a matter of personal preference.

I'm not "missing the point" because you are now makings a completely different point. Previously you said or certainly implied that a person's vote doesn't have consequence for others - which I disagree with, of course it does. Now you're saying people are not obligated to consider the impact their vote has on others. I do agree with that - I mean, it would be nice if people did but ultimately everyone should have a choice and people are generally quite self centred so vote for their own interests.

And to compare what is a direct consequence of poor behaviour like poor driving which has a far higher risk of directly negative consequences is foolish.

Lucky I didn't do that then.
You can compare two things to establish a principle without claiming they are equivalent.

Plus with most votes, whether it’s Brexit or even election votes the impact it has on other people is unforseeable (the referendum didn’t decide which manner of post Brexit deal was agreed with the EU)

Some details of what impact Brexit would have were impossible to foresee because no deal was on the table at the time of the vote. Some of the consequences of Brexit were definitely foreseeable though because of what being in the EU means, and what not being in it means. In a general election the parties publish manifestos which outline what they're planning on doing. It's an exercise for the reader to determine the consequences of those things but it's not guesswork.

The NHS argument doesn’t work because there’s no evidence of a lack of funding for that public service

https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-c...he-past-decade

We don't spend as much on our health service as in many other countries.

It is absolutely relevant if you’re making the statement we are not informed enough

It really isn't. I've explained why. Whether the UK population are well informed and how that level compares with other countries are separate things.

this is not a statement I believe you’ve even sufficiently evidence apart from vox pops and google searches

Searching Google for evidence or data is not cheating. And in other posts you have outlined steps you'd take to help the population become more informed. You seem to be arguing with me about something we agree about.

Your argument comes from the belief that if there is any percentage of uninformed people voting that’s not acceptable but at the same time you seemingly agree that there’s no way to make 100% of the population sufficiently informed.

I don't think it's acceptable that any people vote without having the first clue what any of the parties are promising. But I acknowledge it's not possible to prevent that - well, I've suggested one way, but agree it's problematic.
In my work I manage IT systems, we work in an Agile way and one principle is making incremental improvements. Any measure which would improve things would be a good thing. It doesn't have to fix everything and it probably can't, but if we can improve things then we should.

The point is you can firewall the system as much as you like. You have to accept that other people having the same freedoms you do, comes with risk.

Sure. But I see no down side in having a better informed, more engaged public.

[HCZ_Reborn]

I’m doing what’s called covering my bases

I don’t believe what people vote for or don’t vote for has a direct impact on others certainly not to the same degree as someone driving without having passed a test, and therefore what consequences there are for others is not the responsibility of the voters to have to consider. The right to vote is sacrosanct, it can only be removed as a punishment for breaking the societal contract by committing serious crime.

I’m also pointing out the difference between a desirable and an imperative. There’s a difference between what would be nice and what must happen. Certainly a more informed electorate would be nice but there’s absolutely not the justification to place impositions on the voter.


Actually no, if we had left the European Union but remained in the Single Market the impact on anyone on a day to day basis would have been absolutely negligible. So there were not consequences from leaving the EU that were obvious from the outset, as a result of a leave vote.

Comparing a paid job and a basic right won’t help you. If you’re being paid for your services it’s absolutely incumbent on you to show basic competence and engage with CPD (Continuous professional development) you have no basic right to stay employed if you do not meet the requirements of your employer.

[Niall_Quinn]

Godwin's Law

Took us a while, but we got there.

Broken record. You have a supremely limited bag of tricks.

[Niall_Quinn]

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

Having BALLS is a good system. This reliance of fighting over who should rule your life is chillingly pathetic. Don't you have a set? Can't you decide how YOU want to live your life? And, before you even start, Government does NOTHING. NOTHING that you THINK government does is done by them. All they do is steal your money and hire people to do the shit you think you need. BUT, they also cream off the top so they can do their own terrible hit, like start wars. What the fuck is wrong with your brain? Why can't you see something so obvious?

[Letters]

Can't you decide how YOU want to live your life?

Yes. Up to a point.
Because we live in a society, which means the things I do can affect other people.
So a society needs rules.

I've been through this. An elected Government may not be a good way of defining those rules, but it's probably the least bad way. It's the system basically every country has arrived at. Other systems such as dictatorship or a king are worse. And consensus isn't possible in a large enough population.
I think our version of it is particularly poor - which is what HCZ and myself are talking about.

[Letters]

The right to vote is sacrosanct, it can only be removed as a punishment for breaking the societal contract by committing serious crime.

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. I see voting as a responsibility as well as a right. I do believe there are consequences to votes. So I think measures to encourage people to take that responsibility more seriously are a good thing.
Whether that should go as far as literally preventing people voting if they don't - well, I can see that might be going too far although sometimes I can't help feeling that's what should happen. In much the same way I'm largely against the death penalty but sometimes hear a case where I can't help feeling that the perpetrator deserves to die.