**** Elections thread *****

[boost]

the QQ vs AK analogy is unworkably flawed. As far as the election goes we don't know which side had QQ and which side had AK, or if those were even the hands at play. Certainly most people thought it was more like remain with an over pair and leave with a suited connector. Considering we only have the educated forecasts from pre-vote and an N of 1, it's pretty hard to argue that it wasn't close.

As Poop has pointed out, it's odd how you mix up your views with the views of the populace/leavers without seeming to notice. You also conveniently reject the will of anyone who voted brexit but may have changed their mind with the justification that they were naive or are idiots. You now say that you know it won't be all berries and cream in the short term-- yet I distinctly remember you explaining how easily it will be for fishermen to find new markets for their catches or, and I don't think I'm making a parody of your claims, the British will simply eat more fish... Apparently lots of people were naive going into the referendum, and it seems naive to claim none of them have become more grounded and had a change of heart.

You flatly assert that every single vote for leave wants to leave even without a deal. This is absurd. The leave campaign sold potpourri, but now that it's time to deliver, all they've got is a choice between a couple different sacks of shit.

[dwarfman3]

Certainly most people thought it was more like remain with an over pair and leave with a suited connector.

The feeling was that Remain was even stronger than that - maybe I'm in a bubble because I live in London, which is the most pro-remain part of the country, but even on the day of the vote it was just inconceivable that Remain would lose.

I still remember how gobsmacked I was when the very first region's count came in (Newcastle if I recall correctly) and it was almost immediately clear that Leave were going to win.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I still remember how gobsmacked I was when the very first region's count came in (Newcastle if I recall correctly) and it was almost immediately clear that Leave were going to win.

*sigh*

I try to pay attention to both sides, but it's hard to find intelligent voices on either side.
It doesn't help that my voice is not very intelligent on political topics, and so I'm seeking something that is hard to know when I see it.
Do they disagree with me because they're wrong and stubborn? Or because I am?

Those intelligent voices don't seem to be attracting much media attention, and are going largely unheard by people seeking them.

[dwarfman3]

*sigh*

I try to pay attention to both sides, but it's hard to find intelligent voices on either side.
It doesn't help that my voice is not very intelligent on political topics, and so I'm seeking something that is hard to know when I see it.
Do they disagree with me because they're wrong and stubborn? Or because I am?

Those intelligent voices don't seem to be attracting much media attention, and are going largely unheard by people seeking them.

You wrote this as a response to my comment about how shocked I was to see Leave win in 2016. Did you quote the wrong thing? Apologies in advance if I'm being stupid and missing something, but this doesn't seem at all relevant to the post of mine you quoted

[MadMojoMonkey]

You wrote this as a response to my comment about how shocked I was to see Leave win in 2016. Did you quote the wrong thing? Apologies in advance if I'm being stupid and missing something, but this doesn't seem at all relevant to the post of mine you quoted

It was a tangent, but I quoted the right quote.

I lament the fact that it's all too easy to find an echo chamber and all too hard to find an intelligent discussion between people who disagree without getting or taking it personally.

I think I deleted the first part of my response because I was implying you are one of the people in an echo chamber, but I didn't really mean that or want to imply it. I pivoted into the difficulty of finding a non-echoic chamber. I lost track of the fact the my response lacked continuity without that, and so...

my bad.

It was never my intent to point a finger at anyone but myself.
I apologize if what inspired my introspection was in fact me thinking something ignorant and wrong about you.
(I mean... kinda... I'm not really that sorry, as I feel I recovered pretty well, but it would be nice if I didn't start from a place of being a jerk, ya know.)

[Poopadoop]

the British will simply eat more fish...

I believe he also added words to the effect of "I like fish", which presumably he spoke on behalf of all Leavers.

[OngBonga]

@boost

As far as the election goes we don't know which side had QQ and which side had AK,

Leave had QQ. This analogy works on the basis of 52/48. Forget the fact that QQ is actually 58%, I should've said AKs to be closer. Whatever. Just replace xx and xx with a hand that is 52% favourite.

You also conveniently reject the will of anyone who voted brexit but may have changed their mind with the justification that they were naive or are idiots.

How do people think this is a serious argument? I vote Tory. Election over. Shit I've changed my mind because I'm an idiot. Change my vote.

That is what you're saying. It's nuts, it is not how democracy should ever work. You vote, that's it. Jesus.

You now say that you know it won't be all berries and cream in the short term--

I've always said this. I've never said the economy would magically improve the day we left. I've always insisted the economy would need to adapt. I just argued that over time, that adaptation is for the greater good.

yet I distinctly remember you explaining how easily it will be for fishermen to find new markets for their catches or, and I don't think I'm making a parody of your claims, the British will simply eat more fish..

I mean I realise that I play the "troll" card when it's seemingly convenient, but don't take everything I say to poop as honest. If I say "we'll eat more fish" then I'm being facetious.

Apparently lots of people were naive going into the referendum, and it seems naive to claim none of them have become more grounded and had a change of heart.

It doesn't matter, and I'd say this if remain won.

You flatly assert that every single vote for leave wants to leave even without a deal.

No, you've chosen to interpret it that way. I'm saying that if a deal cannot be agreed, no deal is the default, and anyone who voted to leave without realising this is naive.

[OngBonga]

@dwarf

Do I think we should have another referendum? No.

Do I think we should have held the first referendum? No.

Do I think it's possible for a deal that satisfies even a majority of Leave voters? No.

Do I therefore think Article 50 should be revoked? No.

Do I think Brexit will ultimately be good for the country in terms of both economics and policy? Absolutely not.

I respect this position.

[OngBonga]

Hey poop.

But given how close the vote was, why are you so against another, updated vote?

The vote wasn't close, and regardless, the last result has not been actioned yet. If Corbyn wins the next election, I don't think we should have another election before he even gets the keys to Number 10.

Not how math works, unfortunately.

It is how democracy works, fortunately.

Serious question: It's been three years since the referendum. Should the votes of people who died since then still count?

Serious answer - yes.


If I die ten minutes after voting in the next election, should my vote be counted? Many people who voted to leave did so because they felt it was beneficial to their children. You might strongly disagree with them, but it's not for you to say "haha you're dead, your vote doesn't count".


Besides, do you think 1.4 million people who voted to leave have died?

(over 65s voted 60/40 leave - that's a decisive majority by the way)

According to whom? Polls? I don't recall answering the question "what is your age" on the voting form.

What about people who since have turned 18?

No. What if I turn 18 the day after the election? Should I suddenly be allowed my say? What about someone who turns 18 the day after? How do you not see the problem here?

Should they now be given a say in the future of the country over someone who's already dead?

Election results would never happen if we played this game. We'd have daily recounts, and it would cost an absolute fucking fortune to administer such ideas.

Are you seriously being serious with these questions? Or did you just not think it through for longer than it took to type?

[Poopadoop]

Funny how we'll being having our second general election since the referendum, but Ong thinks another referendum would be a crime against democracy. Apparently we're only allowed repeated votes on certain things in a democracy.

[OngBonga]

By the way, a referendum where majority wins would mean that a proven, indisputable result of 25, 000,000 vs 24,999,999 is "decisive",

Decisive doesn't mean what you think it means. It means "providing a definite result".

1.4 million votes is clearly a definite result. There's no way you can argue a recount would give a different result.

[Poopadoop]

By the way, a referendum where majority wins would mean that a proven, indisputable result of 25, 000,000 vs 24,999,999 is "decisive",

Decisive doesn't mean what you think it means. It means "providing a definite result".

1.4 million votes is clearly a definite result. There's no way you can argue a recount would give a different result.

You're using your own definitions again. And you're still going back to this 1.4 million number because it makes a good impression on you because it's a large number. But that's not how percentages work, see.

Decisive implies there is a clear consensus among the population. Here, there wasn't. This means there's the problem that it's much more likely 2% of the population will have changed their mind than if the difference was 60/40 or 70/30 or whatever. So no, it was not 'decisive', as much as you'd like to argue it was.

[OngBonga]

At least dwarfman accepts we shouldn't have another vote or revoke the last one. We can disagree on the benefits and costs of Brexit all day long, but the integrity of democracy is another matter altogether. dwarfman seems to recognise democracy is more important than economics. Good for him.

[Poopadoop]

At least dwarfman accepts we shouldn't have another vote or revoke the last one. We can disagree on the benefits and costs of Brexit all day long, but the integrity of democracy is another matter altogether. dwarfman seems to recognise democracy is more important than economics. Good for him.

This is really your only argument, rah rah democracy. I'm all for democracy except when it comes to letting uninformed people make major policy decisions. That's why we elect representatives.

If you really want democracy, we should be allowed to vote on everything, every bill that comes before parliament, every budget, etc. It could all be set up online and done really cheap.

So why don't we do that? It's because a large number of people are idiots and if you let them vote on everything soon the country would be a shambles because idiots who dont understand anything would collectively be running the country.

[dwarfman3]

At least dwarfman accepts we shouldn't have another vote or revoke the last one. We can disagree on the benefits and costs of Brexit all day long, but the integrity of democracy is another matter altogether. dwarfman seems to recognise democracy is more important than economics. Good for him.

I think that's kind of where I'm at, yes - but I think this might inaccurately paint my position to be of someone who is shouting RESPECT THE REFERENDUM!!!11!!1!! from the rooftops, and that's not what I'm doing.

My view is simply that both the basis and the actual process of undertaking the referendum was flawed. The issue at hand simply isn't something that ever should have been considered appropriate for a referendum, for a whole host of reasons.

For those reasons alone it is fairly obvious that a second referendum, even if it were to return a Remain majority, would help nothing. As for an active revocation of the Article 50 process, that has a firm potential to cause a great deal of turmoil and really is a struggle to justify.

The best case scenario is for the country to elect a majority government that is purposely ambivalent on the issue and ultimately allow the Brexit process to fall in on itself organically 4 or 5 years from now. This is fairly unlikely as I don't see any major party taking that approach.

The worst case scenario, which in all likelihood is going to happen, is for the country to elect a Boris Johnson majority gov't who will force through no deal. Whilst that will ultimately kill right wing politics in the UK for a generation, it will cause immense economic distress that will similarly take a generation to recover from.

My vote in December will be a tactical vote against Boris (which in my constituency is for Labour). However, I don't feel a great deal of affinity towards any major political party at the moment.

[OngBonga]

We haven't left the EU yet poop. We don't vote for something, then have another vote before we've actioned the last vote. Again, that isn't how democracy should ever work. It would render the entire process pointless.

[MadMojoMonkey]

We don't vote for something, then have another vote before we've actioned the last vote.

Many have made excellent points on both sides of this in the recent posts, but I don't think this one's gotten the credit it deserves.

There can be reasons to go against this, but I don't recall any good ones being posited for this specific case.

@poop:
Do you agree with the quoted bit. At least vis-a-vis the integrity of democracy?

If not... care to show me how I'm being stubborn and not seeing your reasons?

If so... what are the outstanding circumstances that we should consider in making an exception for this specific issue?

[Poopadoop]

Many have made excellent points on both sides of this in the recent posts, but I don't think this one's gotten the credit it deserves.

There can be reasons to go against this, but I don't recall any good ones being posited for this specific case.

@poop:
Do you agree with the quoted bit. At least vis-a-vis the integrity of democracy?

If not... care to show me how I'm being stubborn and not seeing your reasons?

If so... what are the outstanding circumstances that we should consider in making an exception for this specific issue?

We (or at least our elected reps) have tried repeatedly (and failed repeatedly) to action the vote of the referendum. From this, one must ask why not? If it were clearly the will of the people to have a no-deal referendum, then it should have been done. The issue, however, is more nuanced than this, as I don't beleive all Leavers are like Ong and all 'arrrrrrugghgghg no deal is better than remain'. If they were so headstrong, the government would have wanted their votes and gone ahead with a no deal. That it didn't happen suggests that the government thinks the consensus (such as there was) was to achieve a Brexit with a proper deal in place.

Or, one could argue the gov't realises how bad virually any deal would be for the country and is simply waffling in the hopes that the country will come to its senses and stop supporting Brexit. Don't know.

But in principle, if a referendum has a clear majority (and I don't think this one does) then the gov't should fulfill it. That this referendum was so close is probably one reason the gov't doesn't feel compelled to push it through no matter what. They probably feel it's better to piss off a few Ongs than to ruin the country, dunno.

Edit: I would add that, given the outcome was so close, the gov't should also accept that the will of the people may have changed by now. Further, there's all sorts of problems with the referendum question being ill-posed as yes/no, when the issue is so much more nuanced than this. This is why you don't let the general population run the gov't. Most people don't have enough expertise to make informed judgments on the future of their country.

[OngBonga]

You're using your own definitions again.

No, I googled it to be reasonably accurate. You seem to think it means "substantial" or words to that effect. It doesn't. I literally copy/pasted the google definition. You're the one defining words to suit you, not me.

[Poopadoop]

No, I googled it to be reasonably accurate. You seem to think it means "substantial" or words to that effect. It doesn't. I literally copy/pasted the google definition. You're the one defining words to suit you, not me.

Oh fuck off.

Decisive - clearly providing a definite result

Definite - clearly stated or decided, not vague or doubtful

The result was 52/48. Plenty of doubt there.

[OngBonga]

Oh fuck off.

Decisive - clearly providing a definite result

Definite - clearly stated or decided, not vague or doubtful

The result was 52/48. Plenty of doubt there.

Haha. If we recount, it might be 1,399,974

There's your doubt.

"Clearly providing a definite result".

The result was clearly definite.

[Poopadoop]

Haha. If we recount, it might be 1,399,974

There's your doubt.

"Clearly providing a definite result".

The result was clearly definite.

I'm not disputing 52% is greater than 48% if that's what you mean. I'm disputing whether that difference means the population as a whole was decisively in favour of Brexit. Clearly it was not.

[OngBonga]

I'm not disputing 52% is greater than 48% if that's what you mean. I'm disputing whether that difference means the population as a whole was decisively in favour of Brexit. Clearly it was not.

"population as a whole".

Nice shifting of goalposts. I'm only taking into account legal votes, and the result was...

clearly definite, or to use a better word, decisive.

[OngBonga]

It's not my only argument, it's just my most powerful one. Democracy is extremely important. Being given a vote, and then having that vote annulled because "people change their minds" or "people die" or "the result is stupid" is a direct challenge to the principles of democracy. Something you don't seem to think is important.

[Poopadoop]

It's not my only argument, it's just my most powerful one. Democracy is extremely important. Being given a vote, and then having that vote annulled because "people change their minds" or "people die" or "the result is stupid" is a direct challenge to the principles of democracy. Something you don't seem to think is important.

I never said we should annul the vote. I'm saying we should have another vote.

[OngBonga]

I never said we should annul the vote. I'm saying we should have another vote.

That would effectively be annulling the previous vote.

[Poopadoop]

That would effectively be annulling the previous vote.

Not annulling, updating.

[OngBonga]

Not annulling, updating.

But it's me playing semantics.

You're funny.

[Poopadoop]

Anyways will be interesting to see what happens. I kinda suspect Brexit will be a no-go regardless, and it will be fun to watch Ong screeching about democracy for another ten years.

[OngBonga]

poop, how exactly do you think democracy should work?

As for the Trump bullshit, I don't care. I haven't been following it because it's very probably politically motivated. If it's politically motivated, then yes, it's a challenge to democracy. If he has broken the law, then no, it is not, because the law is clear about what happens to presidents that break the law.

[Poopadoop]

poop, how exactly do you think democracy should work?

As for the Trump bullshit, I don't care. I haven't been following it because it's very probably politically motivated. If it's politically motivated, then yes, it's a challenge to democracy. If he has broken the law, then no, it is not, because the law is clear about what happens to presidents that break the law.

lol, "politically motivated". He's on the phone bribing the president of the Ukraine, gets caught, and somehow that isn't enough to impeach him, it has to be "politically motivated".

But anyways, shouldn't the people be allowed to decide what rules he can and can't bend/break? Why should elected representatives decide? Why not hold a referendum?

Also, fwiw, in the US the president doesn't have to break a law to be impeached. Technically at least, the representatives can just decide they don't like him anymore and kick him out.

[Poopadoop]

What exactly makes you think the collective will of people is always the best thing? Apart from masturbating to the word 'democracy', surely you can see that the people can collectively be wrong about some things?

[OngBonga]

What exactly makes you think the collective will of people is always the best thing? Apart from masturbating to the word 'democracy', surely you can see that the people can collectively be wrong about some things?

I don't think I ever suggested the will of the people is a "good thing". I just argue that democracy is important, largely because the alternatives are far worse.

The people can make stupid decisions. See Tony Blair. But if we wish to avoid living in a very shit country under authoritarian rule, then it's important to respect the will of the people when they are asked.

[Poopadoop]

But if we wish to avoid living in a very shit country under authoritarian rule, then it's important to respect the will of the people when they are asked.

It's not an either democracy or a dictator situation. I guess nuance is a challenge for you, but really try to see that there's shades of grey everywhere.

[OngBonga]

It's not an either democracy or a dictator situation. I guess nuance is a challenge for you, but really try to see that there's shades of grey everywhere.

Ok, what alternatives are there to democracy?

[Poopadoop]

Ok, what alternatives are there to democracy?

We live in one.

[OngBonga]

But anyways, shouldn't the people be allowed to decide what rules he can and can't bend/break?

No. However, if they're asked, then the result should be respected.

But let's not get sidetracked with something I don't give a shit about.

[OngBonga]

I thought that was going to happen Oct. 31. Nice fearmongering though.

It should've happened last March. The patience of the people has its limits.

You're right, Boris is acting a bit like a dicator. I'm hardly cheering him on though.

No, but you're cheering on the noise regarding calls for a second referendum, which is, in my book, cheerleading against democracy. You only want democracy when you win.

[Poopadoop]

It should've happened last March. The patience of the people has its limits.

Sounds like you want it to happen. Nice.

No, but you're cheering on the noise regarding calls for a second referendum, which is, in my book, cheerleading against democracy.

"In your book", exactly.

You only want democracy when you win.

The referendum was specifically put out there as not a legally binding vote, so ignoring it is not undemocratic actually.

[OngBonga]

Sounds like you want it to happen. Nice.

Of course I don't. I want us to leave, not have a democratic crisis.

"In your book", exactly.

It's my opinion. There's no hard evidence that you are in fact cheerleading against democracy, not like there's hard evidence that "leave" won a decisive referendum.

In your book, dead people don't count, implying we need daily analysis to figure out who has died since the vote. So don't sit there and mock my "book".

The referendum was specifically put out there as not a legally binding vote, so ignoring it is not undemocratic actually.

This is a tired argument. There is no point in having a referendum if the result is "advisory" or whatever jargon you wish to use to justify ignoring the will of the people.

[Poopadoop]

This is a tired argument. There is no point in having a referendum if the result is "advisory" or whatever jargon you wish to use to justify ignoring the will of the people.

Not at all. If you hold a vote and tell people 'but we're not necessarily going to fulfill the outcome' then that's no different from running a national poll. If you ignore a poll result,that's not going against democracy.

[OngBonga]

I specifically remember Cameron saying in 2015 that the result would be respected.

full speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVjhs3gVtJE

"If we vote to leave, then we will leave".

clip - https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/90...erendum-latest

[Poopadoop]

I specifically remember Cameron saying in 2015 that the result would be respected.

full speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVjhs3gVtJE

"If we vote to leave, then we will leave".

clip - https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/90...erendum-latest

Doesn't matter what he says. He's no longer PM. It matters how the referendum was worded, as to whether it was legally binding or not.

[OngBonga]

Doesn't matter what he says. He's no longer PM. It matters how the referendum was worded, as to whether it was legally binding or not.

He was PM when he said it, and it's amusing how you dismiss what the then PM was telling us about the referendum and what it meant, considering you're arguing "but we're not necessarily going to fulfill the outcome".

He directly contradicts you.

[Poopadoop]

He was PM when he said it, and it's amusing how you dismiss what the then PM was telling us about the referendum and what it meant, considering you're arguing "but we're not necessarily going to fulfill the outcome".

He directly contradicts you.

He was making a promise, not describing whether or not the referendum was legally binding. Two different things. And since he's no longer PM, he failed to fulfill that promise and therefore you should write him a strongly -worded letter.

I can promise to buy you a beer when we meet. If I break that promise, you can't take me to court and say I broke a contract.

[OngBonga]

He was making a promise, not describing whether or not the referendum was legally binding. Two different things. And since he's no longer PM, he failed to fulfill that promise and therefore you should write him a strongly -worded letter.

I can promise to buy you a beer when we meet. If I break that promise, you can't take me to court and say I broke a contract.

Maybe he should've put such a promise on the side of a bus, maybe then you'd be outraged about broken promises and utter bullshit.

Do you not see a problem with the PM saying "here's a referendum, this will decide our fate and there won't be another one", and then abandoning that claim and holding another referendum? Do you not see how this is a "democratic crisis", a direct challenge to the principles that all western societies hold in high regard?

It's like lies are only a problem to you when they mean you lose.

[OngBonga]

@dwarf

The issue at hand simply isn't something that ever should have been considered appropriate for a referendum, for a whole host of reasons.

I'm not really interested in challenging this argument. But it was put to the people, which makes the whole debate a matter about the integrity of democracy, and not a simple "in/out" debate.

The worst case scenario, which in all likelihood is going to happen, is for the country to elect a Boris Johnson majority gov't who will force through no deal.

This is the best case scenario. Shit state of affairs, to be honest.

Whilst that will ultimately kill right wing politics in the UK for a generation, it will cause immense economic distress that will similarly take a generation to recover from.

It might, or it might not. I think way too many non-economists are getting caught up in a subject they have no hope of ever fully understanding. Myself included.

[Poopadoop]

I think way too many non-economists are getting caught up in a subject they have no hope of ever fully understanding. Myself included.

Maybe they're simply listening to what a lot of economists are saying rather than applying their own uninformed analysis as you seem to imply.

[OngBonga]

Maybe they're simply listening to what a lot of economists are saying rather than applying their own uninformed analysis as you seem to imply.

If by "economists" you mean "businessmen and politicians with a vested interest" then sure, good point.

[Poopadoop]

If by "economists" you mean "businessmen and politicians with a vested interest" then sure, good point.

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying professional economists who work at universities are businessmen and politicians?

[Poopadoop]

Anyways, we've been through this all before. The referendum was politically binding not legally binding. So therefore if the promise to uphold the result is broken the consequences are wholly political for whoever breaks that promise. You can't take them to court and say "But you promised Brexit, so Brexit has to happen. arrgghggghgh!!!"

[MadMojoMonkey]

Sounds like poop has no faith in or love for a direct democracy. Poop prefers a republic, or representative democracy.

Sounds like, at least in the abstract, ong believes that all democracy is great. Since there was a direct democratic vote, that vote should be "gospel" at least until the result is achieved.

***
I'm actually now interested in what was the legal standing of the referendum.

Was it an "advisory" directive, or a legally binding directive?
It occurs to me that I assumed the latter, but that's not typically how laws are made, so my assumption is probably bad.

What, specifically, legally, does a referendum of this sort imply as consequence?

A quick google search tells me that in the UK, referendums of the Brexit sort are not typically legally binding, and when a referendum of the sort is legally binding, there is verbage in the referendum which clearly states the exact nature of the legal binding.

The Brexit referendum was a cultural thermometer, not a legally binding directive.


Am I wrong? Please source.

[Poopadoop]

Sounds like poop has no faith in or love for a direct democracy. Poop prefers a republic, or representative democracy.

The only problem I have with democracy is that people often get what they deserve rather than what's best for them. The current POTUS is a prime example of that.

I'd like to see some version of democracy where you have to pass a certain knowledge test before you're allowed to vote, as in you have to have some idea what's going on. It'd be a very small voter pool. Basically I don't want uninformed idiots deciding my future.

[Poopadoop]

It's a pretty unequivocal 'no, not legally binding'

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ign-parliament

You're right, in order for it to have any legal weight, it has to include words to that effect. Brexit didn't.

Edit: Interestingly, they could have included the wording to make it legally binding, but didn't. Make of that what you will.

[Poopadoop]

I shouldn't use the word 'deserve' as if stupid people deserve bad outcomes. They don't. My point was more that not everyone is qualified to take part in all decision-making processes. They have very simple rules for who can and can't vote, so in that sense we are already away from true democracy.

The average sixteen year old arguably has more of a grasp on (and definitely more of a stake in) what's going on in the world than the average geriatric person.

Back to the question of qualifications, I am not qualified to take part in a lot of decisions that affect me to a greater extent than which gang of crooks gets voted into office. Things like what direction my uni takes affects my livelihood. Yet the people who make those decisions don't ask me to input or vote on those issues because I'm not an expert on business, and I accept that. Yet, we celebrate the idea that every ignoramus 18 and over has an equal say in who runs our government because fap fap democracy.

[Poopadoop]

Actually I think it'd have the opposite effect. Certain people are more qualified to recognize corruption and self-serving in gov't and vote it out than others. Generally, that would be high IQ people, but some high IQ people don't give a shit, so they'd be out. You could have a lower than average IQ and still pass the 'informed' test. You basically just have to demonstrate some political savvy. Not sure how that would work in practice though or what the test would look like.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The average 16 yo will vote Mrs. Tiddies into any office she runs for, regardless of qualifications.
I'm not sure that's the group we want making the big decisions.

18 yo's are not too much better, but there's gotta be a line and while 35 makes more sense, it's just not practical. People get fired up into politics long before that and if they're marrying and having babies, then it's hard to justify them not having a say in the gov't, IMO.

I'll take whatever age society wants to call "adult," but the "you can fight and die for (y)our beliefs, but can't be trusted with alcohol" is stupid.

It's a huge problem. People are highly corruptible, especially people whom seek positions of power. At the same time, people will fight corruption to their deaths, and never seek positions of power. At the same time, people will overthrow corrupt politicians only to immediately become just as corrupt as the people they ousted. People want to be left alone, but at the same time, want to tell each other what to do.

We're a hot mess.

[Poopadoop]

The average 16 yo will vote Mrs. Tiddies into any office she runs for, regardless of qualifications.
I'm not sure that's the group we want making the big decisions.

Most of them wouldn't vote in my Poopocracy though, because they'd still have to pass the 'informed voter test'.

[boost]

dipping back into "the will of the people":

Poop made a really good point that I want to reiterate. You guys over there are in a situation where direct democracy seems to be at odds with representative democracy. My conclusion is that either you, Ong, have misinterpreted the results of the referendum to mean the will of the people was to leave no matter what, or the will of the people has shifted, as exampled in the action of their representatives. Either way, it seems imprudent for you to argue you're arguing for the execution of the will of the people.

[OngBonga]

The only problem I have with democracy is that people often get what they deserve rather than what's best for them. The current POTUS is a prime example of that.

This isn't a problem to me. I'd rather make my own stupid mistakes than have someone in a privileged position tell me what's best for me. Maybe that's the difference between us both. Maybe that's why you're happy working in a country you don't respect.

Basically I don't want uninformed idiots deciding my future.

Try North Korea. Certainly don't live somewhere where independence, democracy and equality are important.

I shouldn't use the word 'deserve' as if stupid people deserve bad outcomes. They don't.

Sure they do. People become less stupid by learning from their mistakes. Maybe in ten years I'll admit it was a mistake to vote to leave. In your opinion, I became less stupid. If someone else is making my "correct" decision for me, I'm always going to remain stupid.

The average sixteen year old arguably has more of a grasp on (and definitely more of a stake in) what's going on in the world than the average geriatric person.

Bullshit. The average 16 y/o is interested in sex, drinking and socialising. Old people are more interested in their legacy... leaving their children and their grandchildren with a heritage.

Yet, we celebrate the idea that every ignoramus 18 and over has an equal say in who runs our government because fap fap democracy.

Like I say, try North Korea.

When your argument is basically "fuck democracy", you're fighting a losing battle.

[Poopadoop]

This isn't a problem to me. I'd rather make my own stupid mistakes than have someone in a privileged position tell me what's best for me.

I'd rather mistakes weren't made at all. If I go 'hurr durr, I'm gonna fix my boiler myself even though I'm not qualified', I don't then go 'hey good for me, I made my own mistakes' when the thing blows up.

Maybe that's why you're happy working in a country you don't respect.

Ad bananum me all you want. I don't even know what this means lol.

Try North Korea. Certainly don't live somewhere where independence, democracy and equality are important.

Independence from what? I'd like independence from stupid people's decisions. I'm not getting it. The promise here has been broken.

Democracy in its current form doesn't always work for the reasons I've stated ad nauseum.

Equality is a liberal myth. There's a reason I don't ask a retard to do my investing, and it's not because I don't respect him, I just don't respect his ability to handle money. Just like I don't respect the average person's ability to answer an ill-formed question in a reasoned way.

Maybe in ten years I'll admit it was a mistake to vote to leave.

Why does this strike me as unlikely.

The average 16 y/o is interested in sex, drinking and socialising. Old people are more interested in their legacy... leaving their children and their grandchildren with a heritage.

For a guy who never leaves the house you sure have a deep understanding of how everyone else thinks and acts.

When your argument is basically "fuck democracy", you're fighting a losing battle.

Well, my argument is more nuanced than that, but never mind go on with your ad bananums if it makes you happy.

[OngBonga]

Hi Ong, welcome to my world where I let other people more qualified than I make some of my decisions.

Sure. I'd rather a doctor make the decision that I need chemotherapy than me make such a decision. The key here is that I have trust in my doctor to make a decision that is in my best interests, rather than his. Also, my life is on the line.

And I also let the majority make decisions on my behalf, even if I disagree with such decisions.

Isn't this pretty much every politician?

Yup. Do you think not having democracy frees us of this burden? I personally think democracy is the only weapon we have against such people.

It is funny when someone with a black-and-white view of the world notices a shade of grey.

It's funny when someone who thinks people are black and white realise that nobody is.

You can also pay to be 18 if you're not.

Not really. Such lies are much more likely to be exposed. Most 18 year olds didn't leave secondry school two months ago.

Like how were 'just fine' after WWII? 'Cause I'd prefer a better standard of 'just fine' than that if possible.

So would I, and yes, it's very much possible.

[boost]

Hey Ong, thanks for pointing me to Switzerland's direct democracy. It appears that it's the only country that has anywhere near that level of direct democracy, yet it is still a hybrid system with elected representatives as well as referendums. It's definitely interesting to read about, and it makes me wonder why they stand alone. But they stand alone is a lot of other ways as well, not all of which are prescriptive for other countries, i.e. their country is a natural fortress, but Poland, a giant flat plain, wouldn't be wise to take a lesson from the Swiss on declarations of neutrality.

Another thought on their system is that it's a much different form of direct democracy. It's not top down, it's bottom up. It's not the political class tossing a bone to the masses as a stunt. There are barriers to entry, and they are overcome by grassroots organizing. I certainly favor this form of direct democracy over what that fool Cameron* did.

As for direct democracy being a more pure form of democracy, I can see that angle, and I'm sure I could argue against it, but that would be a tacit acknowledgment that purity is a worthwhile goal.

I'm not trying to level an insult here, but I'll just say that you have pretty strong opinions on democracy for someone who apparently just learned the difference between the representative and direct forms.


*on hanging Cameron: I was kinda joking, but also speaking pragmatically. The referendum has left you Brits in a no win situation. There is essentially no reasonable way out of it. You're right in saying that staying, whether through a successive referendum or by parliamentary veto is far from desirable. Leaving without a deal or with a shitty deal is awful. Which is worse is debatable, but if Cameron were hung for his stunt, it's ironically a stunt that could work as a blow off valve. Or at least it would have been perfectly viable a few centuries ago.

[OngBonga]

Switzerland is indeed an interesting country. The "natural fortress" thing is something they share with us... mountains make great defences, so does sea. We're a lot bigger though, and of course we're far from neutral. I'd like us to go their way, obviously that's not ever going to happen.

I don't know precisely how their democracy works, but I do know they have lots, and I mean lots, of referendums.

I knew the difference between direct and representative democracy, it's just I don't use the term "direct" democracy. I call it "real" or "pure".

And Cameron, I mean obviously you don't think he really should be hung, but I did feel compelled to point out that Prime Ministers have done much worse things than attempt to give people a democratic voice on a matter, Cameron included... sending our boys to wars that we shouldn't be fighting. In Blair's case, the war he got involved with was based on a pack of lies and he should be tried for international crimes, along with Bush Jnr. But that's a whole different subject. I'm not interested in giving Cameron a hard time for doing something I consider to be a good thing. I'm in no doubt he expected us to remain, so his intentions were probably to secure himself a top job in the EU after his time was up here, so it's not like I think he's a hero or anything. Far from it. But the idea this is a "no win" situation assumes that leaving the EU is a bad thing... something we're not going to agree on, certainly not yet anyway. It's going to take many years of us going it alone before I can even begin to accept that, and even then I suspect there will always be the argument that the economy is simply being mishandled. I often mention Japan as an example of a nation with a strong economy despite not being a member of a continent-wide trade and political union. Japan is truly independent. China does not dominate their affairs. What's wrong with us trying to do things their way? If we had 80% the success they have, we'd be doing great.

Even if it turns out to be a disaster, I wouldn't blame Cameron. It's not like he was the one who made me want to leave the EU. I've not liked where they were going for some time now, the Euro was the first step towards "federal superstate" status and from there it's just further and further integration. We did well to stay out of the Euro. And yes I realise it is, and can remain, a successful currency. But it directly takes control of the most crucial aspect of a nation's economy. Leaving the EU is one thing, but if we have their currency, that makes it a great deal more complex.

The EU have a common foreign policy. I'm not sure how much of an obligation we have to follow such policy, and I do also acknowledge that our foreign policy is awful. But that's why I won't vote Tory. If they get voted in, I have to accept their foreign policy and hope they get removed in five years. There's no such luxury with the EU. We're lucky to get one vote a generation, and even when we get that vote, it causes all sorts of horrible noise that goes on for years. If we don't leave now, we're simply postponing this for some time in the not-too-distant future, and we have the horrible noise all over again.

[boost]

You can call it whatever you want, but you're just making up value loaded terms to suit your purposes. Direct democracy is a form of democracy, one which has short comings. You're happy to use the Swiss as an example for how great direct democracy is, yet you haven't stopped to ask why they don't actually have a direct democracy, but instead have a hybrid. So do they have it wrong as well?

[OngBonga]

I'm not making up terms to suit my purpose, more making up terms through ignorance of what the correct term is. But I feel I have to point out that, while I cite Switzerland as an example of both a nation with more democracy than the UK, and a successful European nation outside of the EU, I'm no expert in Swiss affairs. I don't know why they don't use direct democracy for all matters, but I am aware they have lots of referendums. Switzerland works, their standard of living is higher than ours.

Honestly, if I'm expected to be an expert about subjects I wish to discuss, I wouldn't be in a position to discuss anything, and neither would anyone else here, with perhaps a few exceptions (mojo and physics). I feel like you're setting the bar too high for me here.

[boost]

Honestly, if I'm expected to be an expert about subjects I wish to discuss, I wouldn't be in a position to discuss anything, and neither would anyone else here...

I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm not making up terms to suit my purpose, more making up terms through ignorance of what the correct term is. But I feel I have to point out that, while I cite Switzerland as an example of both a nation with more democracy than the UK, and a successful European nation outside of the EU, I'm no expert in Swiss affairs. I don't know why they don't use direct democracy for all matters, but I am aware they have lots of referendums. Switzerland works, their standard of living is higher than ours.

This is the issue. Being ignorant of the terms and concepts is fine. And intuitively overvaluing direct democracy makes sense. But you have ignored my point that representative democracy is not a lesser democracy, the two are simply different forms of democracy, both with pros and cons. Maybe more direct democracy than what is typical in democratic states is ideal, maybe even more than Switzerland. Maybe it's highly situational and the ideal will be different from place to place-- from culture to culture. The issue I have is that you remain wedded to this idea that direct democracy is true democracy in the face of arguments to the contrary, without having interacted with those arguments.

[OngBonga]

But you have ignored my point that representative democracy is not a lesser democracy

This is a matter of opinion, expert or not. I don't agree that our "First Past the Post" system is the equal of referendums. USA's idea of democracy is flawed, too. We saw that when Clinton won the popular vote but still lost to Trump.

The issue I have is that you remain wedded to this idea that direct democracy is true democracy in the face of arguments to the contrary, without having interacted with those arguments.

Fair enough. But I stand by my claim that direct democracy is more "pure" than representative democracy. Whether issues such as EU membership should be put to the people is another matter. I think so, but I do get poop's assertion that giving stupid people the same say as clever people has its flaws. It's just the alternatives are less preferable to me.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What makes it a little difficult is that while you acknowledge you aren't an expert, you tend to use expert language.

I'm not judging or telling you how to behave. It's just that for me, when you aren't an expert, you should use more questions than statements, or at least speculate as to the pros and cons of any assertion you make.

So when you come off all, "This is the right way of things." on a subject you aren't an expert on, it can look like a lot of hubris that may or may not be worth the personal effort to dig through. I know you well enough to know that it's usually worth the effort on my part, at least.

[boost]

What makes it a little difficult is that while you acknowledge you aren't an expert, you tend to use expert language.

I'm not judging or telling you how to behave. It's just that for me, when you aren't an expert, you should use more questions than statements, or at least speculate as to the pros and cons of any assertion you make.

So when you come off all, "This is the right way of things." on a subject you aren't an expert on, it can look like a lot of hubris that may or may not be worth the personal effort to dig through. I know you well enough to know that it's usually worth the effort on my part, at least.

Yeah, this may be part of it-- however I am a fan of the "strong convictions loosely held" creed. Argue your points, but be capable of seeing their error and be ready to jump ship as soon as warranted.

[OngBonga]

Yeah, this may be part of it-- however I am a fan of the "strong convictions loosely held" creed. Argue your points, but be capable of seeing their error and be ready to jump ship as soon as warranted.

I agree with this. I'm not that stubborn that I'll never admit I'm wrong. But it'll take a better argument than mine, and I haven't seen one here to suggest representative democracy is the equal of direct democracy.

[OngBonga]

What makes it a little difficult is that while you acknowledge you aren't an expert, you tend to use expert language.

Thanks, I take that as a compliment.

So when you come off all, "This is the right way of things." on a subject you aren't an expert on, it can look like a lot of hubris that may or may not be worth the personal effort to dig through. I know you well enough to know that it's usually worth the effort on my part, at least.

I don't claim "this is the right way", it's more a case of "I think this is the right way". Very few people are experts in any given field, if only experts can discuss these subjects then the rest of us have very little to talk about, and we're left at at the mercy of these so-called experts who don't necessarily have the same motivation as I do. My motivation in these discussions about democracy is what I believe is best for society, not what I believe is best for me as an individual. If we only listen to "experts", then that puts them in a very privileged position and we end up doing what's best for them. That's how politics works.

I just say what's on my mind. I don't pretend to be right, but I'm also too stubborn to be told I'm wrong without something concrete for me to digest.

[MadMojoMonkey]

"Strong convictions loosely held" is an interesting position to support. I see pros and cons. I need to think on it a while.

***
Direct vs. representative democracy

Different forms of gov't work better or worse on different scales of application. Within most homes, I'd guess the system is closer to a communist system than a democratic one. Mom-n-Dad share what is appropriate to the children, knowing what is best for them and addressing their individual needs. At work, it's closer to this than not. The employer is in charge, makes the decisions, and the employees, for the most part, have little-to-no say in the company's direction.

Direct democracy works on small-medium scales, where the distance between the voters and the issues is small. I.e. it makes sense to have a direct democracy in a neighborhood group. Even in small cities, the "ruling" board is often more of a debate moderator than a decision-maker, though if a wider consensus cannot be reached to resolve the issue, that will usually fall on said board.

In my childhood home town, there was a representative system called the board of aldermen for my city. But the aldermen meetings were small enough that anyone could come and listen or speak, even bring up new issues to discuss. It was still a representative democracy, but when everyone knows everyone else, there was very little tomfoolery in the votes.

I don't think it would work on even a county wide level with the populations around St Louis, though. There's just too much to keep track of. You're no longer just beaurocrating a residential district, but residential, commercial, industrial (assuming sim city taught me anything worthwhile, lol). The needs of those different districts is more than your standard person is going to have the time and energy to understand the complexity and balance of.

As scales increase, you need people whose entire job is knowing the interconnectedness of the various societal needs.

Most of the US Constitution is putting limits on the power of the fed. The system of 3 branches to put checks and balances on the other 2 branches like some high-stakes game of rock-paper-scissors was intended to keep separate bodies isolated and in a sense, competitive. A lot of the US Constitution reads like a "the fed cannot do ..." list. It's like the framers knew that at such scales, the fed cannot hope to be fully informed, and therefore the extent of its reach should be curtailed.

But then, we keep scaling up the US. So there's going to be a limit to the utility of the gov't that worked with a relatively miniscule population smashed up on the East Coast of North America.

[OngBonga]

As scales increase, you need people whose entire job is knowing the interconnectedness of the various societal needs.

The question then becomes, how much do you trust these people?

It seems to me like the choice between representative and direct democracy comes down to trust. I don't trust politicians to make decisions that benefit society. I expect them to make decisions that benefit the interests of their employers, the lobbyists, or themselves. All they have to do is convince the voting public they are making decisions on our behalf. That means they can exploit stupid people, so we're back to square one.

The flaws of representative democracy are greater than those of direct democracy. At least, that's how I see it. If I trusted those in power, I would probably see it the other way around.

[Poopadoop]

The question then becomes, how much do you trust these people?

It's not just whether you trust them to do what's best for the country, it's whether you trust them more than the collective will of the citizens in a direct democracy to do what's best for the country. At least the former group usually has a solid idea of the consequences of their choices; the latter often does not.