Page 3 of 4

Re: who are you going to vote for?

Posted: 09 May 2017, 17:16
by yomptepi
* rubs hands *

Re: who are you going to vote for?

Posted: 09 May 2017, 17:40
by northernsky
Toby wrote:People shouldn't have to vote if they don't want to. It's like going to a shop that has nothing you want, yet you are compelled to buy something anyway.


I disagree, as it happens - but there would always have to be a "none of the above" option.

Re: who are you going to vote for?

Posted: 09 May 2017, 17:58
by Geezee
northernsky wrote:
Toby wrote:People shouldn't have to vote if they don't want to. It's like going to a shop that has nothing you want, yet you are compelled to buy something anyway.


I disagree, as it happens - but there would always have to be a "none of the above" option.


Yep, agree- voting should be as compulsory as vaccination.

Re: who are you going to vote for?

Posted: 09 May 2017, 18:28
by Deebank
yomptepi wrote:* rubs hands *



I thought you liked little furry creatures Yomp.
Are butchered foxes a price worth paying for whatever it is she's offering you?

Re: who are you going to vote for?

Posted: 09 May 2017, 18:30
by fire and fueryIre
Deebank wrote:
yomptepi wrote:* rubs hands *



I thought you liked little furry creatures Yomp.
Are butchered foxes a price worth paying for whatever it is she's offering you?


Butchered foxes today, Bambi's poor, defenceless, doe-eyed mother tomorrow.

Re: who are you going to vote for?

Posted: 09 May 2017, 19:42
by Toby
Geezee wrote:
Yep, agree- voting should be as compulsory as vaccination.


Ridiculous. The whole point of "freedom" as espoused by western liberal democracies is that we should not be shackled to participating in a political system if we do not want to. If we don't vote we merely lose the chance to provide our say in the political makeup of the country.

I understand the perspective; that people died for the right to vote. I also think that making people vote and very high levels of voter participation can also produce results that people don't want. You only have to see the result of the Referendum as an example of this; an unprecedented turnout and look what happened.

Re: who are you going to vote for?

Posted: 09 May 2017, 20:26
by Geezee
Toby wrote:
Geezee wrote:
Yep, agree- voting should be as compulsory as vaccination.


Ridiculous. The whole point of "freedom" as espoused by western liberal democracies is that we should not be shackled to participating in a political system if we do not want to. If we don't vote we merely lose the chance to provide our say in the political makeup of the country.

I understand the perspective; that people died for the right to vote. I also think that making people vote and very high levels of voter participation can also produce results that people don't want. You only have to see the result of the Referendum as an example of this; an unprecedented turnout and look what happened.


Has nothing to do with the results, and there is nothing in western liberal democracies that in any way determines whether we need to be "shackled" to vote or not. There are plenty of western liberal democracies where voting is compulsory. It's like anything that is compulsory (education, taxes, social security registration etc) - it is only about the extent to which you believe you belong to a society, and what responsibilities you have as part of a society. To me, while paralleling voting and immunisation was impromptu, the more i think about it the more i think it is accurate - not only is about protecting your own interests, but it is also about protecting the interests of everyone around you from infectious diseases.

Re: who are you going to vote for?

Posted: 09 May 2017, 20:39
by clive gash
Oh super!

Re: who are you going to vote for?

Posted: 09 May 2017, 20:51
by Samoan
Geezee wrote: To me, while paralleling voting and immunisation was impromptu, the more i think about it the more i think it is accurate - not only is about protecting your own interests, but it is also about protecting the interests of everyone around you from infectious diseases.

I disagree. I don't see any correlation between epidemiology and pitching up to a voting booth and marking a ballot paper. The former has the potential to be individually life, or lifes saving, the latter doesn't amount to a hill of beans as one person's vote is statistically insignificant.

Re: who are you going to vote for?

Posted: 09 May 2017, 21:16
by yomptepi
Deebank wrote:
yomptepi wrote:* rubs hands *



I thought you liked little furry creatures Yomp.
Are butchered foxes a price worth paying for whatever it is she's offering you?


Indeed. I cannot understand the fascination with hounding animals. What an odd time to put hunting back on the table. Only about half a percent of voters would vote for the return of hunting, so why chance losing votes?

And Mrs May has very little to offer me. I dislike her education policies. I dislike her infrastructure policies, and I dislike her aggressive stance on Europe. I don't think she has a strong team around her either. Of course next to Corbyn's shambling illiterates, they look like gods...

Re: who are you going to vote for?

Posted: 09 May 2017, 21:38
by The Prof
yomptepi wrote:Indeed. I cannot understand the fascination with hounding animals. What an odd time to put hunting back on the table. Only about half a percent of voters would vote for the return of hunting, so why chance losing votes?.


It looked like a rogue journalist went off grid and asked a question that wasn't on the specially prepared list of questions to ask.

Re: who are you going to vote for?

Posted: 09 May 2017, 23:45
by PresMuffley
Toby wrote:I also think that making people vote and very high levels of voter participation can also produce results that people don't want.


The same can be said for low voter turnout as well, which is why the right here constantly attempts (and often prevails) at suppressing voting rights, disenfranchising millions.

Do you think the remain campaign would have won if more people voted or less? Impossible to say perhaps - and I'm not advocating for mandatory voting - but I'll always be in favor of more people choosing to vote. Though it would certainly help if they made an attempt at properly informing themselves beforehand.

Re: who are you going to vote for?

Posted: 10 May 2017, 10:46
by Geezee
Samoan wrote:
Geezee wrote: To me, while paralleling voting and immunisation was impromptu, the more i think about it the more i think it is accurate - not only is about protecting your own interests, but it is also about protecting the interests of everyone around you from infectious diseases.

I disagree. I don't see any correlation between epidemiology and pitching up to a voting booth and marking a ballot paper. The former has the potential to be individually life, or lifes saving, the latter doesn't amount to a hill of beans as one person's vote is statistically insignificant.


A vote is indeed statistically insignificant, in the same way that it is still highly unlikely that an individual who is non-immunised will have an impact. But ultimately if you are voting for a healthcare-destroying party like the Tories or Republicans, you are killing people just as surely as spreading a disease.

Yes, maybe a far-fetched parallel (although of course most country recommend immunisation but don't make it compulsory), but either way for sure it seems entirely obvious to me that voting must be compulsory.

Re: who are you going to vote for?

Posted: 10 May 2017, 11:20
by Toby
PresMuffley wrote:The same can be said for low voter turnout as well, which is why the right here constantly attempts (and often prevails) at suppressing voting rights, disenfranchising millions.

Do you think the remain campaign would have won if more people voted or less? Impossible to say perhaps - and I'm not advocating for mandatory voting - but I'll always be in favor of more people choosing to vote. Though it would certainly help if they made an attempt at properly informing themselves beforehand.


I'm not saying people can't vote. I guess in America there are significant issues with that, but here in the UK we don't have that problem.

I do think the binary aspect of the referendum made a huge difference - usually people who don't vote will go "well, there's no-one to vote for". Here, they felt like they had a choice.

Perhaps we should be taking a leaf out of Switzerland's book, where I believe they have referendums on lots of topics all the time. But then it's a small country etc etc.

Re: who are you going to vote for?

Posted: 10 May 2017, 12:08
by Uncle Charles Routine
Toby wrote:Perhaps we should be taking a leaf out of Switzerland's book, where I believe they have referendums on lots of topics all the time. But then it's a small country etc etc.


See, the choice between letting the people decide and letting the government decide you might think is a clear one. Except that the people have fucked up time and time again when they've been asked what they think.

Whatever you might think of politicians in general, I think on matters like European integration, devolution of power and immigration they might be more likely to make decisions that benefit the population than you think.

Re: who are you going to vote for?

Posted: 10 May 2017, 12:14
by Toby
Oh I agree with you in the main. Politicians in general understand the nuances of decisions like these far more than you or me.

It was the sheer infrequency of referendums that might have created this problem though; that with the EU referendum, the binary nature of the vote shoehorned a load of other problems into it.

Re: who are you going to vote for?

Posted: 10 May 2017, 13:43
by Goat Boy
Referendums my arse. If we let the people continually decide shit it would be Mad Max within 50 years. They are not informed enough and too emotional. Direct democracy is too flawed for that sorta thing.

We need more people to vote and they need to be better informed. We also need governments that actually represent people who didn't vote for them. Should we do away with single party governments and always have coalitions?

Re: who are you going to vote for?

Posted: 10 May 2017, 14:43
by Toby
What about if you had referendums on things like "should the NHS be opened up to allow a degree of privatisation or should it remain fully public"

I don't doubt that people mostly know fuck all about these things. I don't for one thing. But allowing a degree of participation might enable those who feel disenfranchised to do so.

Re: who are you going to vote for?

Posted: 10 May 2017, 14:46
by Belle Lettre
Goat Boy wrote:Referendums my arse. If we let the people continually decide shit it would be Mad Max within 50 years. They are not informed enough and too emotional. Direct democracy is too flawed for that sorta thing.

We need more people to vote and they need to be better informed. We also need governments that actually represent people who didn't vote for them. Should we do away with single party governments and always have coalitions?

I'd support that. They'll never let it happen here though.

Re: who are you going to vote for?

Posted: 10 May 2017, 14:59
by Fonz
Personally, I don't agree that people should be forced to vote.
But, and this is difficult to police, I think if you don't vote you should STFU when it comes yo talking about politics.

I'm sure we've all endured folks who have an opinion on Brexit, but ask them what they voted for and you get an embarrassed " well, erm ..."

I can't vote Tory, but I won't vote for a party with Corbyn as its leader.