Av Referendum

[pmp10]

What if we accept that people don't vote FOR things, they ONLY vote AGAINST things?

Wouldn't that mean they would always vote to oppose any change?

By that assumption the status-quo candidates would win any election.

[Walsingham]

Hey, I only just thought of this. It's not like I'm plotting to implement it!

 

Yet.

 

Ok, I can see that assuming anyone who doesn't vote at present is supporting the status quo would be utter balls. But if they KNEW that was how it would be taken then I don't see why not. Surely it would serve to rile up anyone opposed to the status quo and make them get up and do something about it.

 

Would it be possible to have a 'things are all wrong' vote, followed by a second round of voting if the incumbent is turfed out?

[Humodour]

Two points: voter apathy and believing people choose/ yet they have no idea.

 

I think I can square the circle here. What if we accept that people don't vote FOR things, they ONLY vote AGAINST things?

 

That is often the case in a first-past-the-post system, it is not the case in a preferential or prop rep system. And if you think about it for a moment, you quickly understand why. Because in a FPTP system it's almost always a 2 party state where a vote for a third party is wasted, so they can't really do anything BUT vote against the party they like least.

 

So if you want to a system where people are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils rather than vote for what they actually want, sure, stick with your system.

[Gorth]

Would it be possible to have a 'things are all wrong' vote, followed by a second round of voting if the incumbent is turfed out?

Watch this space for the new reality TV show... Survivor: The Government. The audience vote who leaves the parliament every week until there is a winner and he/she becomes the Tyrant until next election period

[Humodour]

Would it be possible to have a 'things are all wrong' vote, followed by a second round of voting if the incumbent is turfed out?

Watch this space for the new reality TV show... Survivor: The Government. The audience vote who leaves the parliament every week until there is a winner and he/she becomes the Tyrant until next election period

 

Oh god, can you imagine how much of a popularity contest that would become?

[Tigranes]

They could premiere it with the South Korean parliament, we already do this stuff every year:

 

 

(party in power tries to rush legislation while only their members are inside to vote, uses barricades to stop opposition members coming in, everyone fights. Happens every year. Use saws, hammers, water blasts, you name it.)

[Walsingham]

Two points: voter apathy and believing people choose/ yet they have no idea.

 

I think I can square the circle here. What if we accept that people don't vote FOR things, they ONLY vote AGAINST things?

 

That is often the case in a first-past-the-post system, it is not the case in a preferential or prop rep system. And if you think about it for a moment, you quickly understand why. Because in a FPTP system it's almost always a 2 party state where a vote for a third party is wasted, so they can't really do anything BUT vote against the party they like least.

 

So if you want to a system where people are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils rather than vote for what they actually want, sure, stick with your system.

 

Krez, are you not listening to a word I'm writing? <sic>

 

The problem isn't the process. The problem is the raw cognitive input. Are you honestly suggesting that people know what they vote for when they vote 'for' it? If so, fair play. But I really think you would have been better spending three years meeting real people, and not in that monastery.

 

My solution is not to denigrate them for it, but to consider whether they are in fact correct to accept they haven't a hope of formulating grand visions of the future, and are best off simply objecting when things get really ****.

 

Surely, if one accepts for the sake of argument that people aren't thinking of voting for anytthing, then pertending that they are is monstrously undemocratic?

[Oerwinde]

They could premiere it with the South Korean parliament, we already do this stuff every year:

 

 

(party in power tries to rush legislation while only their members are inside to vote, uses barricades to stop opposition members coming in, everyone fights. Happens every year. Use saws, hammers, water blasts, you name it.)

 

We Canadians have a much more peaceful way. The opposition parties try to push through legislation since they have a majority of the seats, so the party in power simply shuts down parliament, killing any bills that have not yet been passed. Or they make a bill a confidence motion, forcing the opposition to either abstain or vote for it in order to avoid forcing an election that they can't win.

[Gorgon]

Damn, and I thought filibustering was exploiting the system. I've never seen anything like that. Does the vote really stand if there is a horde trying to get in with hammers ?

[Tigranes]

As I understand it, the whole Parliament Siege crap is there because of the various legal requirements for legislation to be passed. Perhaps the party in power contacts their members in secret, convenes at super-short notice, then make sure they have just enough people to allow a vote, and a speaker of the house or equivalent to authorise the vote - then go through the motion, seconding, etc superfast. At the same time the opposition members hear what's going on and know that if they can break down the door, get in and disrupt the proceedings they can delay things long enough to neutralise the surprise.

 

The climax is when the opposition inevitably breaks in and there's a fistfight melee inside parliament, with one guy trying to bang the gavel and authorise the vote with others clinging to his every limb.

 

 

(I'm an idiot in law/politics so all the terminology is wrong.)

 

edit: Oh yes. On topic - Wals, isn't it very dangerous to start letting people vote negatively, though? It will make the kind of negative smearing campaigns( that are already proven as more effective (when successful) than positive campaigns) the order of the day, and the focus will be on what kind of disgusting or otherwise offputting personal quality, scandal or somesuch to pin on the opposing candidate.

[Gorth]

edit: Oh yes. On topic - Wals, isn't it very dangerous to start letting people vote negatively, though? It will make the kind of negative smearing campaigns( that are already proven as more effective (when successful) than positive campaigns) the order of the day, and the focus will be on what kind of disgusting or otherwise offputting personal quality, scandal or somesuch to pin on the opposing candidate.

Isn't that what democracy has been all about the last 10-20 years?!?

 

It was particularly noticeable during the last election here in Australia. Just for fun, I watched a bit of the campaigning. Not a single politician, not a single one, actually told what he wanted to do, only what he wanted to prevent others from doing. I can understand why people are forced to vote by law, because nobody in their right mind would vote for any of the current politicians if they could just ignore them all together.

[Tigranes]

Of course, but isn't the idea that we want to avoid this and restore a semblance of proper democratic voting?

 

I think one of the huge barriers to more / better informed / positive political involvement and participation from voters is the lack of a reliable standard or framework. I paid almost zero attention to politics growing up for some reason, and as I approached voting age I decided to try and do some research - but it was so difficult to 'define' the parties and politicians using existing information because you expend a lot mroe energy trying to judge how biased and in what way the information is (as it nearly always seems to be) rather than compiling that into a fair evaluation. So you either end up going by 'feel' putting your own personal morals into it, which is where negative smearing works well, or giving up.

 

For example, after all that drama, it's really hard for me to tell what the Republicans' real problem is about Obama healthcare, whether it's been 'successful' so far, etc.

[Humodour]

edit: Oh yes. On topic - Wals, isn't it very dangerous to start letting people vote negatively, though? It will make the kind of negative smearing campaigns( that are already proven as more effective (when successful) than positive campaigns) the order of the day, and the focus will be on what kind of disgusting or otherwise offputting personal quality, scandal or somesuch to pin on the opposing candidate.

Isn't that what democracy has been all about the last 10-20 years?!?

 

It was particularly noticeable during the last election here in Australia. Just for fun, I watched a bit of the campaigning. Not a single politician, not a single one, actually told what he wanted to do, only what he wanted to prevent others from doing. I can understand why people are forced to vote by law, because nobody in their right mind would vote for any of the current politicians if they could just ignore them all together.

 

Um, you didn't pay much attention, then. Whatever you think of them, the Greens are pretty plain about what they stand for and their vision for Australia. And that remained the case during the campaign. And you can't just pretend they don't exist because they're not one of the two biggest parties - after all they control the balance of power in both the Senate and the House of Representatives now.

[Gorgon]

As I understand it, the whole Parliament Siege crap is there because of the various legal requirements for legislation to be passed. Perhaps the party in power contacts their members in secret, convenes at super-short notice, then make sure they have just enough people to allow a vote, and a speaker of the house or equivalent to authorise the vote - then go through the motion, seconding, etc superfast. At the same time the opposition members hear what's going on and know that if they can break down the door, get in and disrupt the proceedings they can delay things long enough to neutralise the surprise.

 

The climax is when the opposition inevitably breaks in and there's a fistfight melee inside parliament, with one guy trying to bang the gavel and authorise the vote with others clinging to his every limb.

 

 

(I'm an idiot in law/politics so all the terminology is wrong.)

 

edit: Oh yes. On topic - Wals, isn't it very dangerous to start letting people vote negatively, though? It will make the kind of negative smearing campaigns( that are already proven as more effective (when successful) than positive campaigns) the order of the day, and the focus will be on what kind of disgusting or otherwise offputting personal quality, scandal or somesuch to pin on the opposing candidate.

 

 

We have a simple proxy system. An MP can vote any way he or she likes, but if he doesn't show up to press the button his vote will be tallied with the official party line.

[Meshugger]

I have voted so far in:

 

- 2 presidential elections

- 4 parliamentary and communal elections

- 2 European parliament elections

 

So far, none of those that i have voted for has gotten into office, and i am neither a libertanian, ultra-nationanlist, tree-hugging green or an angry social democrat. I can't help thinking that maybe

 

In short, horrible politicians get into office because people in general are horrible.

[Walsingham]

Good point, Meshugger.

 

In some ways that's what I was really driving at. All this flimflam about democracy, but what it's reallly about is about how you count votes. Prop Rep for examples is based on a circular argument. Obviously it's democratic, if 'democratic' means essentially prop rep. But I'm contrasting that with the notion that democracy is about the will of the people. Yet the will of the people is about hammering stuff they don't like, not pushing for stuff that they do.

 

(Incidentally, in case anyone's forgotten, I notice that Nick 'democracy' Clegg was voted in with a strong backing from people who were anti tuition fees. Nice to see he takes democracy so seriously. I mention it as an example of pushing for things, even though it was arguably against something.)

 

However, apparently we don't like the notion of capturing the negative will of the people in the basic scientific sense.

 

If democracy isn't just about counting votes as equally as possible (circular), and we don't like the fact that people naturally vote like mentalists, then we're right back where we started, trying to make people vote in ways that are less than pure democracy and produce moderately sensible government. unless that's just the rum and fatigue talking.

[Humodour]

unless that's just the rum and fatigue talking.

 

Yep.

[Walsingham]

unless that's just the rum and fatigue talking.

 

Yep.

 

Oh I see. So where's the flaw in my logic then?