- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,776
I think you're mistaken here Buzzer. The majority, like Pretty pink fairy and Footsoldier obviously do significant independent research prior to their thoughtful and insightful forays into political discussion.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Should there be A EU REFERENDUM
- Thread starter pastafarian
- Start date
I think you're mistaken here Buzzer. The majority, like Pretty pink fairy and Footsoldier obviously do significant independent research prior to their thoughtful and insightful forays into political discussion.
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
Then you're doomed to a life of disappointment. It's simply unworkable to set some sort of minimum knowledge-criteria before letting people vote.
Are you saying that badly educated people shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Hmm... you only have to look at the debate over anthropogenic climate change to realise how hard this. Virtually every researcher who mentions the subject is accused of bias - and that's on a scientific subject where data is more easily verifiable. When it comes to politics and economics, there's a wide array of subjectivity involved. I maintain that it would be impossible to have an bias.
Just look at the debate about Thomas Piketty's book. Here's a guy who has done the most meticulously researched book, delving deep into historical data and drawing on an array of figures - all presented quite openly so any critic can look at the assumptions. And yet, he's been attacked by right-wing commentators for his 'bias'. I don't see how any source can be unbiased.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,776
The problem is that there is no 'independent source' that has no bias. The best you can do is to understand the interests of the source (individual or group) that you are using and take that into account when assessing that information. A significant amount of people either will not or cannot invest that time and concentration and will prefer to make snap decisions on very little information.
Best you can do is to make yourself as well informed as possible and then look down on those who don't
*edit* beaten to it by Gwylan who is obviously much younger and faster on a keyboard
Best you can do is to make yourself as well informed as possible and then look down on those who don't
*edit* beaten to it by Gwylan who is obviously much younger and faster on a keyboard
Last edited:
Buzzer
Languidly Clinical
- Oct 1, 2006
- 26,121
But you're arguing that people shouldn't vote unless they can prove they're informed. How do you police that for a start and can you not see that it's incredibly undemocratic?
Maybe folk should pass exams before they can vote? This would also engender some respect and imortance to the ballot box. There are lots of items in life where one has to display a certain aptitude before you can take part; maybe voting should be another.
midnight_rendezvous
Well-known member
I voted yes but honestly I'm on the fence. People should have the right to choose but I don't trust people to make a decision based on anything more than short term gains. Democracy vs. peoples shortsighted nature. Conundrum.
Why not have testing? Criteria is already attached to being allowed to vote; being academically qualified is only an extra one. I'd also add only those between the age of 18 and 30 can vote.
Blimey, it took more than 600 years of parliament before we got universal suffrage and you want to take us back a few hundred years. I know you're fishing but I don't see why, even as a joke, the over-30s should be excluded.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,776
Now you may be onto something. What about testing to allow you to post on NSC ? 15 years ago it was a sufficient test to be able to buy, plug in and sign onto a computer, but as technology gets easier, maybe we should have a more stringent test ?
The Spanish
Well-known member
expand on that please and how the right wing will become marginalised in the UK.
The Spanish
Well-known member
or perhaps own land or be a specific gender
On the latter point I have suggested before that my generation has let the next generation down. We've royally ****ed it for them. Why should we be allowed to continue screwing things up further? Maybe it is time to step aside and let the youngsters have a go; surely they cannot do worse?
In the US white middle class people with right wing views are increasingly in the minority as Latinos Hispanics and Afro-American populations grow. The Republican party with its tea party leanings are incapable of attracting these minorities. So as these societal characteristics grow democratic power for Republications in the Senate and the Presidency reduces . In Congress however the Republicans will have a majority for many years because of dodgy boundary drawing. So potentially there is stalemate with an increasingly hostile right wing constituency blocking a Democrat President
In the UK long term trends are equally against UKIP and right wing Tories. Look at London - highly diverse, minority of white people, UKIP nowhere, Labour getting stronger. Where London leads will not others follow?
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
You have hit the nail on the head here. UKIP is the fork in the road. I said in another thread that Labour will appeal more to the people that arrived in this country under their government, and that their support will just get bigger and stronger.
It makes me laugh when they say on the radio, Labour strategists will have to work out why they have been such a success in London. Anyone with half a brain would have already worked that part out.
Creaky
Well-known member
You've identified the fundamental flaw with the democratic system applied to central government - the majority will always vote for what they see as being in their best interest rather than what is best for the whole.
If a referendum was held on a simple question as to whether or not the personal tax allowances should be doubled then you would likely get a different result to the compound question of should the tax allowance be doubled and NHS funding halved?
Almost by defintion a referendum has to be held based on a simple question`without consideration of possible consequences.
At least in a representative democracy those voted into power know that if they make foolish decisions based on short term popularity then they are likely to suffer at the ballot box when the full results of those decisions become apparent. The other side of that coin though is that decisions made for the long term 'good' can have unpopular short term effects.
You miss out one of the most obvious trends: the age demographic. The stark fact is that the majority of under-40s are pro-European, while the majority of over-60s are anti (see http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/m...-to-stay-in-the-eu-can-we-change-their-minds/). That You Gov survey is not the starkest I've seen either.
Again, according to You Gov, more than 70 percent of UKIP voters are over 70, while just 15 percent are under 40 (those are last year's figures, bit early for the current ones).
Like the similarly ageing US Republicans, UKIP really has to do something radical to appeal to the younger voter or it will find its support literally dying away
Yes good point. The average age of a conservative party member is I think 68. I cant imagine younger people wanting UKIP - they have nothing to offer them. The only problem is that as we know young people do not tend to vote. We have to make the electoral system more up to date (see Poly Toynbee's latest article in the Guardian) for example online and mobile voting
Voting yes on the poll. Broadly in favour of the EU and feel that more co-operation and less division ultimately makes everyone stronger, but I also understand that not everyone feels that way and the only way to decide which was is the most popular with people actually effected by the system of governance is to let them vote on whether they want it.
As to points about representative vs direct democracy, I think it's reasonable to give referendums on elements that effect the nature of our democracy and layers of government, much like the AV poll a few years back.
As to points about representative vs direct democracy, I think it's reasonable to give referendums on elements that effect the nature of our democracy and layers of government, much like the AV poll a few years back.