Dumbing down the Electorate

Dumbing down the Electorate

Have pity on us all those non-Brits out there. We may not be expecting hanging chads or suicide bombs but we do expect that a lot of bull scented brown stuff will be coming our way accompanied by lies masquerading as policies.

For the first time we will have a TV debate which will substitute an X-factor mentality for democracy and the likes of twitter and facebook will cater for the irredeemably vacuous.

I don't see any way to get round this election torture machine except to ignore it totally, make my mind up now and vote by proxy. which is precisely what I shall be doing.

Any advice from the wiser heads out there?

I have no TV and choose what I read or watch on the internet. I don't vote, don't register as a voter, and never have done, and probably never will.

Sounds good, but I would miss Doctor Who.

Can't you watch it on one of the online services? I don't watch TV either, but I get plenty of series, movies, documentaries etc. through DVDs, uitzendinggemist.nl etc.

I don't feel the need to pay 30 Euros a month or more for some lousy stuff that I never watch, anyway.

In the UK we pay £12 per month for the BBC and with it comes many other channels which are free.

The same principle is true for Political Parties - we pay our taxes and get political parties for free :heavy sarcasm:.

I'd rather watch TV.

Originally posted by string:

In the UK we pay £12 per month for the BBC and with it comes many other channels which are free.

Hence why it is also all available for streaming online, for free, because you already paid for it. Or should be, at any rate. I've got to say I'm not sure why they insist on streaming and don't just offer downloads. They do with the radio shows, anyway.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by string:

In the UK we pay £12 per month for the BBC and with it comes many other channels which are free.

Hence why it is also all available for streaming online, for free, because you already paid for it. Or should be, at any rate. I've got to say I'm not sure why they insist on streaming and don't just offer downloads. They do with the radio shows, anyway.

I don't know the answer to that. In fact I never user the streaming facility because my so-called broadband has a download cap on it.

I would assume that the streaming is free in the UK for the reason you mention. But I don't know.

Politics can be a full-time sport here...if you let it be. This thread went adrift at record setting speed going from election mania to TV habits in short order. I wonder why. Could it be that nobody likes politics?

It's all Pesala's fault! But it does illustrate that TV is more interesting than politics; maybe it's the other way round in some places.

However, disengaged or not, I shall vote.

I shall vote as well, though in the upcoming Dutch elections. I'm curious about the vote-by-mail stuff.

Originally posted by string:

I don't know the answer to that. In fact I never user the streaming facility because my so-called broadband has a download cap on it.

I would assume that the streaming is free in the UK for the reason you mention. But I don't know.

That's a pity (about the download cap). I watch all of my Dutch (& Belgian insofar as I watch any) TV online. I'd watch some BBC stuff as well, but they lock out non-UK-based netizens. I could probably circumvent it with a proxy, but I don't want to watch the BBC that desperately.

Originally posted by string:

However, disengaged or not, I shall vote.

For LibLabCon or for the Greens or (horrors) the Socialists?
(No need to answer if you don't feel like it, I'm just curious.)

No I don't mind answering. I am a floating voter and have voted for both Labour and Conservative in the past. The fluffy Liberal party is a distant third in my book, although I did vote for a party of that name in Canada during the Trudeau period. I would vote Conservative this time for a variety of reasons, the primary one being that I think the current party has been in power for long enough and Parliament needs to be revitalised.

In any case at this time I do not trust the Labour party to do what is best for the country when that is in conflict with their party's interest, and that is what is needed at this time. An example of that is the very date of the election which is on the last feasible date that the election could be held, just so they can keep their miserable jobs a little while longer.

After the election I shall revert to being a floating voter and at the next election my vote will have to be won again by whichever party I choose to vote for.

I see.
Thank you for your response String.

If any other Brit is willing to divulge whom they will be voting for, I would like to hear it.

To tell you the truth I never understood non-floating voters, at least in a Dutch/Belgian-style context. For example, I knew this girl who was expressing discontent with PvdA (Dutch Labor/social-democrats) and that she felt Groenlinks aligned more with what she thought at the time. Nevertheless, she said she was going to vote PvdA anyway because a) she always voted PvdA (although that would've only been one or two times... maybe three) and b) she was a member of the party. I don't align with Groenlinks, but I told her I thought she should vote Groenlinks since that's what she felt like. I don't think she did, though.

I never understood voters. Period.
Does your bulletin votes has an option for: None of the above? I think not.
Why not? That option it's so valid as all the others and has to be counted as a legitimate expression of peoples' will. Therefore, it has to be counted like the others options.
And what happens if it wins? Simple. Elections must be repeated, and all the previous candidates can't candidate again.

It's the only way to get rid of this bunch of parasites. That's why voting bulletins don't have that option.
I'm not an accomplice to this.
Edit: this meaning that. Elections, not the thread.

Originally posted by string:

Have pity on us all those non-Brits out there. We may not be expecting hanging chads or suicide bombs but we do expect that a lot of bull scented brown stuff will be coming our way accompanied by lies masquerading as policies.

Consider yourself lucky. At least your campaign season is only about a month long or so; here it's non-friggin'-stop. Maybe there's a tiny window during the Inauguration when it stops; as soon as the oath's administered, it starts back up.

This is going to be one heck of a dragged out and boring time. We are going to have the election stuffed own our throats at every opportunity. The least wee bit of nonsense will be elevated to super levels by the media industry which has increasingly been taking the place over. I have no intention of watching any of the tv debates between the 3 national UK leaders nor the lesser one here in Scotland. It is yet another Americanism imported in here by a tv world that has a thing about all things American.No harm to ex-Colonists but I think this is a puerile idea and see no need to copy it.

Like many I will try and avoid the incessant stuff we are going to get every day and many will be utterly sick of it all. The only thing that might be of interest to me will be the percent voting as I suspect it will be as the graph has been going for ages - down.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

I have no intention of watching any of the tv debates between the 3 national UK leaders nor the lesser one here in Scotland. It is yet another Americanism imported in here by a tv world that has a thing about all things American.No harm to ex-Colonists but I think this is a puerile idea and see no need to copy it.

I'd have to agree there. Televised debates here are just a way for talking heads to tell us who looked and spoke better, and who ultimately "won". They're meaningless.

British politics is boring. First there was more than a decade with the Tories in power, then more than a decade with Labour, and now we can look forward to another extended decade with the Tories again. The LibDems would hope for the slim chance of a hung parliament for election reform, like they always have done.

The Czech election is more depressing, here the swing will be to the Social Democrats, a party maybe even more corrupt than the Tory-like ODS (and I mean that in a real sense). The best thing that ever happened here was this period's hung parliament. Won't happen again.

Rory Bremner (a humorous impressionist) was talking about a political question session as part of an "Election Battlebus Tour" where they invite election related questions for a panel of experts made up (as far as I could understand) himself impersonating political figures. He mentioned one question.

If there was a hung parliament, where would we start?

Originally posted by string:

I would vote Conservative this time for a variety of reasons, the primary one being that I think the current party has been in power for long enough and Parliament needs to be revitalised.

(Please forgive my jumping in at this point… I'll read further and more carefully, later.) Of course, a parliamentary system is different; but here in the U.S. a similar sentiment is still quite prevalent: Better government derives from conflicting branches, i.e., different parties controlling the legislative and executive.
What you term "revitalization" is a legitimate political goal, and I applaud it.

More that British governments tend to overshoot. They start popular, inexperienced, with fresh new ideas, and gradually grow more unpopular. Until to the last election, which they unexpectedly win because the British system is even more stacked in favour of the incumbent than the American.

Their last term they are really unpopular and the opposition wins with a landslide. By now 15 years have passed, and the opposition is popular, inexperienced due to being out of power so long, the old politicians are retired, and gradually grow unpopular in government.

Gridlock isn't that great a political model, but British politics is a good argument for term limits. Of course Russian politics shows how easy that can be circumvented.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

I never understood voters. Period.

Does your bulletin votes has an option for: None of the above? I think not.

Yes, it does. It's called a blank vote over here.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Why not? That option it's so valid as all the others and has to be counted as a legitimate expression of peoples' will. Therefore, it has to be counted like the others options.

And what happens if it wins? Simple. Elections must be repeated, and all the previous candidates can't candidate again.

It's the only way to get rid of this bunch of parasites. That's why voting bulletins don't have that option.

I'm not an accomplice to this.

Edit: this meaning that. Elections, not the thread.

I'm not quite sure what would happen if the blank vote got a majority. I don't think it ever has. However do note that abstaining from voting may do more to force a repeat vote than a blank vote, as the total required to make the vote valid may be reached easier when blank votes are included, thus giving a sense of legitimacy to the whole process.

As it is though, I rather doubt that anything of the kind will happen, so I'd rather vote for something that at least roughly represents some of my ideas.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Yes, it does. It's called a blank vote over here.

No, it's not.
Blank vote doesn't express "none of the others". It can express several things as "to me it's indifferent" or "I don't answer" or "I don't know". Therefore can't be taken as a decision and win elections.
What I said can win elections and promote real change.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

No, it's not.

Blank vote doesn't express "none of the others". It can express several things as "to me it's indifferent" or "I don't answer" or "I don't know". Therefore can't be taken as a decision and win elections.

What I said can win elections and promote real change.

In the Dutch national elections what you say is true and it doesn't have much of an influence, but that's nothing inherent to the terminology or use of "blank vote" I'd say. If the electoral system does actually take a blank vote into account it's typically as a none-of-the-others kind of vote. Also note that "none of these candidates" option may be treated the exact same way as the blank vote is in the Dutch system in some electoral systems.

So I agree in principle, but I like to nitpick.

Doesn't anybody here trust politicians?

According to polls Norwegians on the whole do, and they don't do so badly. My guess is that countries that trust their politicians do better than the ones that don't, a hypothesis that should be fairly easy to test. Me, I would be sceptical to anyone in position of power.

Ok. But what does "do better" mean?

Good question. Beer consumption per capita? Life expectancy? GDP per square meter? It may not be so fairly easy as initially assumed. A priorly agreed basket of health, wealth, transparency, education, and crime, maybe? That should cover most of the major government-related expenditures except defence, which would be hard to compare fairly.

We do need a change or you end up with a one party State thing. Labour has had it's run and it is odd that each time it runs out it leaves a financial quagmire? The Liberal Democrat Party will do well just to hold what they have as they will get squeezed. They can promise the Heavens because they won't get in and Clegg is as noticeable a s fly on an elephant. Most people I suspect wouldn't recognise him and he waffles on as a lightweight.

We have to have a change.

Originally posted by string:

Have pity on us all those non-Brits out there. We may not be expecting hanging chads or suicide bombs but we do expect that a lot of bull scented brown stuff will be coming our way accompanied by lies masquerading as policies.

For the first time we will have a TV debate which will substitute an X-factor mentality for democracy and the likes of twitter and facebook will cater for the irredeemably vacuous.

Some people have great faith in the population at large being intelligent enough to see what is what and make the right choices in life. Be it at an election or elsewhere.

I personally, and regretfully, subscribe to the view that the average person out there is actually pretty dumb, and needs to be told what choices to make. Hence the excellent sales figures boasted by the Sun and Mail et al. Dumbing down politics might just be the best solution. In fact, lets go the whole hog and have the general election decided by a special show - I'm A Politician, Get Me Out Of Here! But lets leave the venom in the snakes in the pit...

A beneficial side effect of dumbing down politics could also be that the politicians themselves will understand what they are supposed to be doing.

I have investigated the procedures for voting from Mexico. It is perfectly possible. But the expense of a stamp and an envelope just seems a bit much for me, given what I'll get back..

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

If any other Brit is willing to divulge whom they will be voting for, I would like to hear it.

Okay, I'll play.

I will likely have the choice of 4 candidates (maybe 3), Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative for defo, possibly a UKIP candidate. None of these are my party. I'm a Green, have been for many years but owing to a shortage of candidates I haven't had a chance to vote for one since 2001.

My seriously abridged current views are:
New Labour = Out to criminalise everybody. Especially me. Their last two terms have been a total let-down IMO. Time to go says I.
Conservatives = Destroyers of my local industry. too keen to protect the rich and trade in the poor for cost-efficiency (a charge I could equally level against New Labour).
UKIP = Anti EU Conservatives wearing Union Flags. I'm a protectionist, but these guys come over as xenophobes.
LibDems = ??? The Mystery Box party. I've read through their Pocket Policy Guide, but I'm seeing a lot of Tax Cutting, where I'm more an Get What You Pay For kind of guy.

A wasted vote is a vote you don't believe in. Short of standing for election myself, I guess I'll be wasting mine. Maybe I'll side with LibDems, maybe I'll spoil my paper in protest. Maybe I'll vote for UKIP just to see what happens. Only thing for certain is that I'm sick of New Labour and it's time to become sick of someone else.

Originally posted by WastedCharlie:

maybe I'll spoil my paper in protest.

If I were in the UK and could be arsed, I would spoil my ballot. For most of the last few years I had assumed I'd vote Conservative but now that the time has come, they have completely turned me off. The choice seems to be between incompetent idiots with experience and incompetent idiots with no experience. I'm not going to vote for an incompetent idiot no matter how practised he or she is at being an incompetent idiot.

The Tories have come across, for me anyway, as a party of weasels dedicated to promising anything, just to get into power. No real conviction whatsoever.

The UK does count spoilt ballots, so there is some purpose in it. However, there are numerous types of ballot which are classified as spoilt, so the total sum cannot be counted as a protest vote. I would like to see an option at the bottom stating 'none of the above'.

I don't like the concept of not voting because it is really a wasted opportunity. It's impractical to expect to agree with everything a party does, but it's part of life that we have to make, in the end, a choice in our actions. \Only (and maybe not even then) when one is choosing a wife/husband/partner do we conventionally fool ourselves into thinking we have made the perfect choice,.

The idea of counting spoilt votes as if they mean something is a bit fanciful, after all the reason for the spoiling may be anywhere from a deeply held belief in believing nothing or simple mindedness. Any message would get lost and in any case remain unknown,

Originally posted by string:

It's impractical to expect to agree with everything a party does

Definitely.

Originally posted by string:

I don't like the concept of not voting because it is really a wasted opportunity. It's impractical to expect to agree with everything a party does, but it's part of life that we have to make, in the end, a choice in our actions. \Only (and maybe not even then) when one is choosing a wife/husband/partner do we conventionally fool ourselves into thinking we have made the perfect choice,.



The idea of counting spoilt votes as if they mean something is a bit fanciful, after all the reason for the spoiling may be anywhere from a deeply held belief in believing nothing or simple mindedness. Any message would get lost and in any case remain unknown

I understand what you mean, and yes a spoiled ballot can mean too many things to carry too much meaning. Which is why I'd like the 'none of the above' option. To make my position clear. And no, there will never be a political party that has policies anyone will agree 100% with. But at the same time, there can be a situation where all the main parties include policies so fundamentally disagreeable that you don't want to vote for any of them. I'm particularly disgusted with the Digital Bill passed yesterday.

Incidentally, and ironically, simply not turning up to vote at all registers more than a spoiled ballot. Far more attention is given to voter turnout than the number of spoiled ballots. That's not how it should be in my opinion, so I again refer back to my 'none of the above' request. People who do take the time to turn up and pop the bit of paper in the box should register more than those whose apathy is such they don't bother to leave the living room.

Thanks for the post, WastedCharlie.

Originally posted by garydenness:

Which is why I'd like the 'none of the above' option.

Incidentally, the Russian Federation has that on it's ballots.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Thanks for the post, WastedCharlie.

Originally posted by garydenness:

Which is why I'd like the 'none of the above' option.

Incidentally, the Russian Federation has that on it's ballots.

Well, the blank field for writing your own candidate in found on some ( all? ) US ballots is essentially the same.

It will be interesting to see what happens outside the big two. The Liberal Democrats the last time had over 60 MP's which was their highest since the 1920's. They think they are going to pick up a lot but I very much doubt that. I suspect that they will be squeezed as will the smaller parties which some pundits think may give up surprises. UKIP is hoping to do well in Buckingham and the BNP in Dagenham. However i think the main conundrum will be on Labour and Conservative. The Tories would have to climb exceptionally high in percentages due to them being so far behind the last two General Elections. People are fed up with Labour but not sure of the alternative. That eejit, Alex Salmond the man of the sound bite and caustic comment is blabbering on about taking another 20 seats. Aye, in his dreams.

WastedCharlie may moan about not being able to vote for a Green candidate but that is the pure luck of thew game. Some could argue the same for the UKIP and BNP although I see they are fielding over 320 candidates?? Parties have to put out their stalls and encourage membership or support so Charlie boy it is a political market so to speak. If people are interested in the Greens they will have more candidates and if not it is tough luck. UKIP, BNP, SNP, PC, etc, etc all started from virtually nothing so it is all about appeal. It is obvious that so far not enough are interested in the eccentric Greens.

This election is wide open and although in principle we need a change Brown could sneak back in due to vagrancies. Even with questions about the opposition Another 5 years of him is a nightmare.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Incidentally, the Russian Federation has that on it's ballots.

Does it actually have much influence though, other than giving an indication?

Originally posted by Macallan:

Well, the blank field for writing your own candidate in found on some ( all? ) US ballots is essentially the same.

I wouldn't vote for Mickey Mouse.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Well, the blank field for writing your own candidate in found on some ( all? ) US ballots is essentially the same.

I wouldn't vote for Mickey Mouse.

I'd prefer Mickey Mouse over some of the real life clowns over here. Same goes for a brick.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Brown could sneak back in due to vagrancies.

I had no idea there would be so many homeless people voting that they could swing the result.

And as you well know people can be fooled (Blair?) and not just some of them some of the time. Another 5 years of stealth taxes, piles of parliamentary bills that don't mean a damn thing, increased national debt and political correctness, health n' safety fiascos is enough to make you stare into your porridge.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

is enough to make you stare into your porridge.

Has a gnat violated your porridge lately?

No but I was once in a restaurant in Ayr for a conference and I was served up soup with a fly in it and I was none too pleased about it either. I got the whole meal free. Now anyone mucking with my porridge had better be brave.

Well I'm feeling more inclined towards the LibDems in light of their statements that they see no need to increase VAT in any hurry.
I know the Conservatives have said similar, but they're ruled out on ideological grounds and past behaviour.

A potential increase in VAT is, for me, a deal breaker. Anyone who wants VAT increasing wants strangling. It seems totally at odds with the recession-tackling measures of the last 2 years that (so far as we'll ever know) have worked reasonably well (i.e. we've had some return to growth): we lowered lending rates to keep the money flowing, we lowered the VAT rate to keep people spending, we kept the automotive industry afloat by lowering the price of new cars through a scrappage scheme. All told, more money in the consumer's pocket means a quicker recovery. But by jamming up VAT, possibly as high as the EU average of 21% will be a monumental screw up IMO. 1stly, any increase in tax is an increase in inflation, which the BoE tries to keep at 2%; 3.5% on VAT, even over a number of years will make that target an impossibility. Secondly, our low VAT rate makes us competetive within the EU, since VAT is paid at the vendor's rate we get heaps of trade from within the union (my business does at any rate). Thirdly, VAT hits the poor hard, especially when there's talk of losing zero-rated goods. In short, it's my opinion since we live in a market economy we should do all that we can to keep the market thriving and that driving up VAT will bring the economy to a shuddering halt. Those who would increase the rate are probably expecting another spend-before-it-goes-up splurdge that we saw at the end of last year, but that's the sort of stunt that only works once. After that, people will get tight fisted and brace themselves for the next increase.

I'm sure there must be plenty of better ways to recoup the national defosit without driving up the cost of everything for everyone (just don't ask me to list them ), even VAT could probably get a better return if the threshold for registration were reduced. There are some, among whom are a couple of my suppliers, who say that they'll cease trading if they get caught in the VAT loop. Mostly 'cos they can't be bothered with the effort. But since the market will still be there for their goods, there's every opportunity for someone more tax-savvy to pick up the slack.

I somehow doubt whether all my questions and concerns will ever be answered by a televised debate. The idea behind it is supposed to be that it'll make people feel more involved in politics; but to me, it'll change nothing. We need a change that will stop so many of us wondering why we bothered to go out and vote in any case. Maybe we need a way to make sure promises are kept. A sort of referee as it were. It annoys me somewhat that we have a convention that the House of Lords won't stop a bill that is part of a party's manifesto, but there's no power that can say "This was on your manifesto and you've done nothing about it, so get a move on". I know circumstances change and what's right before an election may not be right afterwards but come May 7th, we'll all be just as powerless to make our views heard as we were on the 5th.

Originally posted by WastedCharlie:

Well I'm feeling more inclined towards the LibDems in light of their statements that they see no need to increase VAT in any hurry.

I don't have a vast knowledge of Brit politics (though it is more than the average Joe's, I'd wager), but aren't the LibDems a party that basically pushes the EU's agenda? Isn't it headed by Clegg?

Originally posted by WastedCharlie:

I somehow doubt whether all my questions and concerns will ever be answered by a televised debate.

Of course not, it's an organized circus. (Well, at least the ones over here are)

I just count the lies.

You are wasting your time there WastedCharlie if you think that somehow the Liberal Democrats are going to be different. In England they issue a policy and the same party up here in Scotland has shown it to have a conflicting stance! Many English people don't know this. Their ideas are from the Magic Circle. Small wonder the last Liberal government was nearly a century ago. But there again in those days the Liberal Party as it was called was a different animal from todays lot of airheads and Jesus sandals thinkers. All things to all men depending what part of GB you live in. They can say what they want as they will never be a government and judging by the opinion polls which have been very consistent they will get just over 20% if lucky. Most experts think as I said on these Forums that they will be very lucky to keep the 60 odd seats they have and might go down 8 - 10. Handy for waverers and the lost or the save-the-wales mentality but as a credible government? No chance.

They are desperately hoping that if there is a hung parliament they will have some influence but there is absolutely nothing to verify that Gt Britain wants a hung situation. Indeed it would cause more jitters, argument and so on as it is not the way things are done here. It could then lead to yet another election which would cause a groan all round.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

but there is absolutely nothing to verify that Gt Britain wants a hung situation.

No one who wants a hung parliament can vote for one anyway. It's not on the ballot. It occurs when people voting for who they do want vote for different parties in numbers that result in a hung parliament. There is reason to believe that this is possible in the upcoming election.

Wadda you know. Amazing.