ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 16th July 2017, 10:29 PM   #1
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 18,716
Plural voting and compulsory voting

Mod Info The first 95 posts of this thread were split from the Trump Presidency thread, in which they were off-topic. Please use this thread to discuss ideas for the future of democracy, rather than hijacking existing threads.
Posted By:Agatha



Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Trump is in no small part a result of the collapse in the Democrat party agenda. He could never win against a credible party that would field credible opponents. Neither could other Republican crazies for that matter. US politics needs an overhaul, at a minimum it needs an end to gerrymandering and obligatory participation in elections. The first one doesn't need a further explanation, the second one should cut down substantially on the negative approach to elections, where the focus is primarily on making the other guy look worse than you do, so the electorate chooses you as the lesser evil.

These two reforms are something that might be doable. I'd be all for something more profound (e.g. single transferable vote), but that's impossible to achieve anytime soon.

McHrozni

I'm not sure what you mean by "obligatory participation in elections".
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."

Last edited by Agatha; 18th July 2017 at 11:41 AM.
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 11:36 PM   #2
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,366
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by "obligatory participation in elections".
Come election day, you have to show up and cast a vote. It can be a blank one if you want to, but you have to show up and go through the motions of either selecting a candidate or intentionally voiding your ballot.

If not you get fined or something. It doesn't have to be anything major, just enough to get that 95% voter participation on a regular basis.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2017, 11:58 PM   #3
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 18,716
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Come election day, you have to show up and cast a vote. It can be a blank one if you want to, but you have to show up and go through the motions of either selecting a candidate or intentionally voiding your ballot.

If not you get fined or something. It doesn't have to be anything major, just enough to get that 95% voter participation on a regular basis.

McHrozni

Okay. I get it now.

You're against gerrymandering , but in favor of mandatory voting.

That wasn't quite clear from the way you phrased it.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 12:13 AM   #4
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,366
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
I have two problems with this part. First, I don't see how obligatory voting cuts down on negative ads. They're used because they have proven to be effective. If you force people to vote who don't give a damn, the negative ads will be even more effective.

Second, it's clear to me that we already have way, way too many ill-informed or totally uninformed voters as it is. Forcing people to vote ignorantly or - even worse, frivolously - actually diminishes my vote. I'm not for it (for obvious reasons) but sometimes I yearn for an election where the voter has to show some even rudimentary awareness of the issues before being allowed to vote.
You're thinking of it in terms of the next election. It is true that the effect in the first election after voting would become mandatory would be minimal at best. It would take several election cycles for it to change both voting habits and politician strategies. There are several ways mandatory participation in election produces force to move things the right way:

- the electorate that doesn't usually vote now is not discounted and doesn't produce surprises
- voter apathy matters far less and has less impact
- energy devoted to get out the vote initiatives can be used to something more productive
- if two main parties both focus on smearing each other, a third party candidate who focuses on himself can become a credible threat

This last part is how negative approach is best mitigated. It works well if there are two serious contenders, but effectiveness diminishes exponentially with each next candidate. It's little more than a waste of money if you have five contenders, perhaps even sooner than that.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 12:14 AM   #5
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,366
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Okay. I get it now.

You're against gerrymandering , but in favor of mandatory voting.

That wasn't quite clear from the way you phrased it.
Mm yeah, I re-red the post and one indeed could understand it the wrong way. My apologies

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 01:29 AM   #6
Worm
Graduate Poster
 
Worm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,489
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
I yearn for an election where the voter has to show some even rudimentary awareness of the issues before being allowed to vote.
My gut agrees with you, but then my head takes over and asks the question - 'which issues?'

What is important to you may not be important to other voters. They may be voting based purely on a single issue that is important to them, but irrelevant to you, and me, and in fact most people. I dunno, the tax on taxidermist stuffings or something. You and I may think that it's inconsequential, but to them it isn't and that's fair enough.
__________________
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" Isaac Asimov

Not all cults are bad - I've joined a cult of niceness
Worm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 01:31 AM   #7
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 14,152
Quote:
Second, it's clear to me that we already have way, way too many ill-informed or totally uninformed voters as it is. Forcing people to vote ignorantly or - even worse, frivolously - actually diminishes my vote. I'm not for it (for obvious reasons) but sometimes I yearn for an election where the voter has to show some even rudimentary awareness of the issues before being allowed to vote.
However, the voting system also influences who is politically educated:

Quote:
US college graduates are far better informed about basic political facts than Americans with only a high school education, according to studies by the Pew Research Center. And men tend to know more about politics than women. At the same time, the US also has infamously low voter turnout compared with the rest of the world. Recent scholarship on voting laws suggests that requiring citizens to vote would not only up turnout—it might also help boost overall political awareness.

...

In countries where compulsory voting is strongly enforced, those who scored well on the political knowledge questions hailed from all educational backgrounds. Not so in other countries (including the ones where mandatory voting is less rigorously enforced), where well educated voters tended to be much better informed than everyone else.

The effect on the gap in political knowledge between men and women was illuminating as well. In general, men tended to answer more of the political knowledge questions correctly than women. However, in countries with compulsory voting, this gender gap in political knowledge was much less pronounced than in other countries.

In other words, compulsory voting somehow relates to the more even distribution of political knowledge throughout the electorate.

Sheppard’s analysis echoes previous studies on how compulsory voting affects political engagement. As researchers Malcolm Mackerras and Ian McAllister note in their comparative study of political party affiliation, “Compulsory voting ensures that voters cast a ballot and the act of voting means that they are forced to think, however superficially, about the major parties.”
Linky.

Also they don't have to vote, they can cast a blank ballot.

Additionally, this notion of "informed voters" is a myth based on a rudimentary ideal of "democracy". Like everything else in life since the hunter gatherer days, there is a division of labor, and the masses do not need to have working knowledge to engage positively.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

Last edited by Tsukasa Buddha; 17th July 2017 at 01:34 AM.
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 02:03 AM   #8
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,366
Originally Posted by Worm View Post
My gut agrees with you, but then my head takes over and asks the question - 'which issues?'

What is important to you may not be important to other voters. They may be voting based purely on a single issue that is important to them, but irrelevant to you, and me, and in fact most people. I dunno, the tax on taxidermist stuffings or something. You and I may think that it's inconsequential, but to them it isn't and that's fair enough.
Perhaps, but if you're voting on a single issue which is important to you but trivial for the society as a whole and you're ignorant of the issues which do matter to the society as a whole, you could well classify as an ignoramus who doesn't deserve the right to vote.

Still, presenting the voters with a knowledge tests of the key issues with the society would be problematic from many aspects. First of all, which issues make it in the test and which ones don't? How do you score the test, where do you draw the lines? How do you even administer it? Is it constitutional (protip: no)? And so on and on.

A much more effective shorthand is to either set a maximum voting age (the easy way) or utilize plural voting where a person can obtain additional votes for doing stuff that correlates with better knowledge of the issues, like paying a certain amount of taxes (not too high, but enough to make people on the dole less important than the rest), graduating from college and such. This is more difficult and better than the former. Neither is prefect of course, but such changes could improve modern democracy.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

Last edited by McHrozni; 17th July 2017 at 02:04 AM.
McHrozni is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 02:21 AM   #9
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,881
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Come election day, you have to show up and cast a vote. It can be a blank one if you want to, but you have to show up and go through the motions of either selecting a candidate or intentionally voiding your ballot.

If not you get fined or something. It doesn't have to be anything major, just enough to get that 95% voter participation on a regular basis.

McHrozni
That's the law currently in Belgium, though I'm told that punishments for not turning out are rare. There is no postal vote, but proxies are very often used.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 02:26 AM   #10
TofuFighter
Graduate Poster
 
TofuFighter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,327
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
A much more effective shorthand is to either set a maximum voting age (the easy way) or utilize plural voting where a person can obtain additional votes for doing stuff that correlates with better knowledge of the issues, like paying a certain amount of taxes (not too high, but enough to make people on the dole less important than the rest), graduating from college and such. This is more difficult and better than the former. Neither is prefect of course, but such changes could improve modern democracy.
This is how those goddam stuffed shirt elites have taken over this country! They think their better n us with their books lookin down they're noses at us.
*********** queer-lovin sheeple traitors. i'm a PATRIOT! one man one vote is my right!!1one! and you can take it when you can pry the gun out of my cold dead hands.

Edited by Agatha:  Edited for rule 10. In the public sections (of which USA politics is one) you must type all curse words out in full, spelled correctly and with no replacement characters. This enables the autocensor to see the word and replace it with a string of asterisks if it is on the banned list. The ' to replace a g counts as a replaced character.
__________________
"come on. Judas is meeting us at midnight with the getaway donkeys"

Last edited by Agatha; 18th July 2017 at 11:50 AM.
TofuFighter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 03:37 AM   #11
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,366
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
That's the law currently in Belgium, though I'm told that punishments for not turning out are rare. There is no postal vote, but proxies are very often used.
Yeah, it's also a law in Australia and probably some other places as well. It's nothing exotic or extraordinary, participation in the process is as much a right as it is a duty.

Originally Posted by TofuFighter View Post
*********** queer-lovin sheeple traitors. i'm a PATRIOT! one man one vote is my right!!1one! and you can take it when you can pry the gun out of my cold dead hands.
Once your hands are cold and dead, prying the gun away from them seems like an ugly, but not all that difficult task to do.

At worst I might need an obsidian knife.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

Last edited by Agatha; 18th July 2017 at 11:51 AM.
McHrozni is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 03:53 AM   #12
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,190
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Once your hands are cold and dead, prying the gun away from them seems like an ugly, but not all that difficult task to do.
I think the difficult part would be making his hands cold and dead.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 04:04 AM   #13
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,366
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I think the difficult part would be making his hands cold and dead.
They get cold on their own once they're dead. Making them dead is the only difficult part.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 04:19 AM   #14
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,190
Isn't that what I just said?
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 04:50 AM   #15
TofuFighter
Graduate Poster
 
TofuFighter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,327
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Isn't that what I just said?
Close. But leave it to you snooty types to to focus your argument on the syntax and specifics.

Honestly, I don't think people in general are equipped to cast a responsible political vote, but not in our lifetime will we see restrictions placed on votes based on any kind of aptitude qualification. I keep thinking, 'there will be a gradual improvement in overall voter education and policy understanding', but then one of the major world powers elects a rank idiot as president.

I'm wondering if ending up with a clown is less a product of failing voter education than it is of the whole circus that the election process has become.
__________________
"come on. Judas is meeting us at midnight with the getaway donkeys"
TofuFighter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 05:09 AM   #16
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,190
Originally Posted by TofuFighter View Post
Close. But leave it to you snooty types to to focus your argument on the syntax and specifics.
What definition of "type" are you using?

Quote:
I keep thinking, 'there will be a gradual improvement in overall voter education and policy understanding', but then one of the major world powers elects a rank idiot as president.
The internet has made us both smarter and a lot dumber.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 05:47 AM   #17
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,881
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
... plural voting where a person can obtain additional votes for doing stuff that correlates with better knowledge of the issues, like paying a certain amount of taxes (not too high, but enough to make people on the dole less important than the rest), graduating from college and such. This is more difficult and better than the former. Neither is prefect of course, but such changes could improve modern democracy.
Such changes will eliminate modern democracy, and return the UK to the property-based oligarchy which prevailed in the nineteenth century. And it will require to be undone all over again.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 06:11 AM   #18
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,190
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Such changes will eliminate modern democracy, and return the UK to the property-based oligarchy which prevailed in the nineteenth century. And it will require to be undone all over again.
Not necessarily. Maybe they'll get it right, this time around!
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 06:38 AM   #19
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,913
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Perhaps, but if you're voting on a single issue which is important to you but trivial for the society as a whole and you're ignorant of the issues which do matter to the society as a whole, you could well classify as an ignoramus who doesn't deserve the right to vote.

Still, presenting the voters with a knowledge tests of the key issues with the society would be problematic from many aspects. First of all, which issues make it in the test and which ones don't? How do you score the test, where do you draw the lines? How do you even administer it? Is it constitutional (protip: no)? And so on and on.

A much more effective shorthand is to either set a maximum voting age (the easy way) or utilize plural voting where a person can obtain additional votes for doing stuff that correlates with better knowledge of the issues, like paying a certain amount of taxes (not too high, but enough to make people on the dole less important than the rest), graduating from college and such. This is more difficult and better than the former. Neither is prefect of course, but such changes could improve modern democracy.

McHrozni
Please explain what is wrong with being on the dole that it is worth fewer votes.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 06:45 AM   #20
Worm
Graduate Poster
 
Worm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,489
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
A much more effective shorthand is to either set a maximum voting age (the easy way) or utilize plural voting where a person can obtain additional votes for doing stuff that correlates with better knowledge of the issues, like paying a certain amount of taxes (not too high, but enough to make people on the dole less important than the rest), graduating from college and such. This is more difficult and better than the former. Neither is prefect of course, but such changes could improve modern democracy.
Wait. What? Is this a bit?

I'm honestly asking. Are you serious? You should get more influence in our democratic system because you pay more taxes? Because you are better educated? Because you are younger?

Wow.
__________________
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" Isaac Asimov

Not all cults are bad - I've joined a cult of niceness
Worm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 06:56 AM   #21
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,352
Representational democracy requires only that each voter be able to identify which of several candidates is most willing and able to create policies and make decisions that align with their own values and priorities. They don't really need to understand all the issues to select someone who will best represent their views when dealing with those issues. It's only when voters are asked to themselves decide specific issues in a referendum that failure to properly inform themselves produces disasters such as Brexit.

Representative democracy does, however, require voters to be able to tell when candidates are lying through their teeth when claiming to share their values and priorities, or are themselves too stupid and ignorant to make informed decisions.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 06:57 AM   #22
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,913
Originally Posted by Worm View Post
Wait. What? Is this a bit?

I'm honestly asking. Are you serious? You should get more influence in our democratic system because you pay more taxes? Because you are better educated? Because you are younger?

Wow.
We could argue methodology but what is your problem with the concept generally?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 06:58 AM   #23
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,913
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Representational democracy requires only that each voter be able to identify which of several candidates is most willing and able to create policies and make decisions that align with their own values and priorities. They don't really need to understand all the issues to select someone who will best represent their views when dealing with those issues. It's only when voters are asked to themselves decide specific issues in a referendum that failure to properly inform themselves produces disasters such as Brexit.

Representative democracy does, however, require voters to be able to tell when candidates are lying through their teeth when claiming to share their values and priorities, or are themselves too stupid and ignorant to make informed decisions.
What makes brexit a disaster? It certainly has costs, but can you say those costs outweigh the benefits to those who voted for it?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 07:00 AM   #24
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,818
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Representational democracy requires only that each voter be able to identify which of several candidates is most willing and able to create policies and make decisions that align with their own values and priorities. They don't really need to understand all the issues to select someone who will best represent their views when dealing with those issues. It's only when voters are asked to themselves decide specific issues in a referendum that failure to properly inform themselves produces disasters such as Brexit.

Representative democracy does, however, require voters to be able to tell when candidates are lying through their teeth when claiming to share their values and priorities, or are themselves too stupid and ignorant to make informed decisions.
The media's role is that of a watchdog to ascertain and inform when a candidate is lying. When you have two separate media systems - one for each party - and one of them are playing along with the lying candidate, it's not really that easy for the average voter to tell truth from lies.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 07:03 AM   #25
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,913
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
The media's role is that of a watchdog to ascertain and inform when a candidate is lying. When you have two separate media systems - one for each party - and one of them are playing along with the lying candidate, it's not really that easy for the average voter to tell truth from lies.
The media has no role other than to generate a profit.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 07:04 AM   #26
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,815
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
We could argue methodology but what is your problem with the concept generally?
Because the point of the whole thing from the get-go was to have every citizen's vote have equal weight.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 07:07 AM   #27
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,352
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
What makes brexit a disaster? It certainly has costs, but can you say those costs outweigh the benefits to those who voted for it?
This is not the Brexit thread. If you don't agree with my example of uninformed voters making the wrong decision in a referendum substitute your own.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 07:10 AM   #28
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,913
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
This is not the Brexit thread. If you don't agree with my example of uninformed voters making the wrong decision in a referendum substitute your own.
It is relevant as I question how informed you are of your own example.

I can't substitute an example if I actually believe examples are few and far between in contradiction to your interpretation.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 17th July 2017 at 07:13 AM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 07:12 AM   #29
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,913
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Because the point of the whole thing from the get-go was to have every citizen's vote have equal weight.
I would imagine that isn't the end goal, but that most people intend it as a means to achieving some actual end goal.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 07:17 AM   #30
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 5,689
Hmmm. The real question arising in the last few posts is, imo, was there ever democratic conviction at the core of movements promoting democracy? Certainly seems so regarding the thought leaders in many movements, but a good argument can be made that democracy has succeeded among the genpop whenever it promised better living standards. Its rise as a major political alternative did coincide with mercantilism and colonialism, after all, which put the bacon in many more hands than those of kings, requiring some new way to handle matters without a fat royal thumb on every scale. It then flourished under the increasing standards of living brought about by the Industrial Revolution. Now that many older democracies cannot deliver ever rising incomes, many backs are turning away from fair play under the rule of law.

In favor of this view is the support authoritarianism is gaining for precisely the same reason, following decades of middle class decline, or years of unrest in other cases. Is it perhaps that people will happily follow "loaf-guards" (hlafords, modern English: "lords"), or guardians of the loaf, who dole out the slices more generously than the current head honchos? Or is fair political conviction, abstract and free of personal interest, that which rules most behavior and determines voting? This "lord-less" thinks, sadly, rather not.

ETA: Trump, on the other hand, appears to be more of an oaf-guard.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; 17th July 2017 at 07:21 AM.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 07:48 AM   #31
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,815
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I would imagine that isn't the end goal, but that most people intend it as a means to achieving some actual end goal.
Based on your imagination.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 07:50 AM   #32
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,913
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Based on your imagination.
Then let's look deeper at the issue. If forced to select only one, would more people side with, "voting is a necessity regardless of how bad the outcome," or "voting is meant to produce the best outcomes"?

The first is ends, the second is means to an end.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 07:52 AM   #33
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 20,881
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Not necessarily. Maybe they'll get it right, this time around!
No. There's no right way of bigwigs arranging what other bigwigs should get the vote. And whatever contrivance they cobble together, the name of "democracy" can't be applied to it.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 08:06 AM   #34
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,190
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
No. There's no right way of bigwigs arranging what other bigwigs should get the vote. And whatever contrivance they cobble together, the name of "democracy" can't be applied to it.
Do you have your user CP set to hide smileys? It was a joke.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 08:26 AM   #35
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,795
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Hmmm. The real question arising in the last few posts is, imo, was there ever democratic conviction at the core of movements promoting democracy? Certainly seems so regarding the thought leaders in many movements, but a good argument can be made that democracy has succeeded among the genpop whenever it promised better living standards. Its rise as a major political alternative did coincide with mercantilism and colonialism, after all, which put the bacon in many more hands than those of kings, requiring some new way to handle matters without a fat royal thumb on every scale. It then flourished under the increasing standards of living brought about by the Industrial Revolution. Now that many older democracies cannot deliver ever rising incomes, many backs are turning away from fair play under the rule of law.

In favor of this view is the support authoritarianism is gaining for precisely the same reason, following decades of middle class decline, or years of unrest in other cases. Is it perhaps that people will happily follow "loaf-guards" (hlafords, modern English: "lords"), or guardians of the loaf, who dole out the slices more generously than the current head honchos? Or is fair political conviction, abstract and free of personal interest, that which rules most behavior and determines voting? This "lord-less" thinks, sadly, rather not.

ETA: Trump, on the other hand, appears to be more of an oaf-guard.
While the party machinery seems to have less and less formaluzed patronage than they used to, the populace at large do seem to clamor for it these days, albeit in different ways.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 09:43 AM   #36
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,815
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Then let's look deeper at the issue. If forced to select only one, would more people side with, "voting is a necessity regardless of how bad the outcome," or "voting is meant to produce the best outcomes"?

The first is ends, the second is means to an end.
You're imagining some greater, deeper meaning or purpose that doesn't exist.

Voting is supposed to give equal weight to the choice regardless of the voter's personal situations.


Period. End of discussion.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 09:54 AM   #37
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,913
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
You're imagining some greater, deeper meaning or purpose that doesn't exist.

Voting is supposed to give equal weight to the choice regardless of the voter's personal situations.


Period. End of discussion.
That statement is meaningless. Why is that the purpose?

And if that is the purpose of voting, why do companies use a method where it is one vote per share?

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 17th July 2017 at 09:55 AM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 10:10 AM   #38
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,815
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
That statement is meaningless. Why is that the purpose?

And if that is the purpose of voting, why do companies use a method where it is one vote per share?
It's meaningless because you're pigheaded and need to be right. It's all good though, because reality still exists regardless of a person's desire to acknowledge it.

1 person 1 vote. Same weight, so long as you're not moving the goalposts to a totally different, corporate place.

Companies are not the Government. That example couldn't be more useless if you tried.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 10:44 AM   #39
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,913
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
It's meaningless because you're pigheaded and need to be right. It's all good though, because reality still exists regardless of a person's desire to acknowledge it.

1 person 1 vote. Same weight, so long as you're not moving the goalposts to a totally different, corporate place.

Companies are not the Government. That example couldn't be more useless if you tried.
You didn't say just government. This is about voting, which isnt always tied to government.

You give no explanation of why or how one person one vote is the purpose or serves some purpose or anything like that.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2017, 10:49 AM   #40
The Great Zaganza
Master Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,644
Voting for the person you have judged to be better is more important than voting at all.
If few people bother to vote, it's a sign that either they don't think their vote matters (which is true in a vast number of places in the US) or that there is too little difference between the candidates to decide either way (which has also been true in the past).
It is local elections that matter. And, especially in small communities, having to explicitly opt-out of voting might make a lot of sense, since every vote might count and the results are sure to be felt.
__________________
"eventually we will get something done."
- Donald J. Trump
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:53 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.