The General Politics Thread v2.0 (AKA the "Labour are Cunts" thread)

[Lorne Malvo]

2 minutes ago, SuperBacon said:

Fantasy booking general elections. A new low for the forum

Big Boss Man's gonna win the next one.

[deathrey]

At this point in time, pretty much everything is CM Punks fault.

[RedRooster]

4 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said:

Isn't voting compulsory in Australia? I'm sure they've found a good way to work around at least some of those challenges, Rooster so I don't think we'd be starting from scratch.

I have to admit, I didn't know this. There's a solid enough article from The Week outlining the pros and cons of mandatory voting; although it doesn't convince me of anything. Ignoring the unfairness side of things - of having to prove you had a legitimate reason not to vote - I don't think the negative impact of uninformed voters should be underestimated. Thanks to dark money and the influence of the Murdoch press, people often vote against their own best interests, and I suspect mandatory voting would only amplify this. 

No one is clambering for mandatory voting here, so it probably won't happen anyway. I'm definitely in favour of PR though. 

[Keith Houchen]

3 minutes ago, RedRooster said:

No one is clambering for mandatory voting here

They’re more a fan of voter suppression over here, particularly those who are less likely to vote Tory. 

[d-d-d-dAz]

I'd actually argue that PR and compulsory voting could - and should - go hand in hand.

PR disempowers communities (or for the sake of British accuracy, 'constituencies') in favour of collective voices. It says that rather than collating the views of the country on a seat by seat basis (Wigan voted Labour so add one Labour MP to the pot, Reigate voted Tory so chuck a blue one in), it says that x amount of Labour/Tories/Greens/Reformers voted country-wide and we should assign MP's to be reflective of those percentages.

I think for that system to work properly, you need as many people as possible to vote so that you are getting a truly collective, proportionate result, as you're completely levelling the town-by-town, city-by-city differences that can iron themselves out in our FPTP, constituency-based democracy.

Not voting in this country is too high, but no one really argues it has any meaningful impact on elections as the lost 20% of voters would almost certainly split along constituency voting-lines. In PR, if only 60% of people vote, but you assign 100% of the available nationwide seats based on their votes, each vote becomes way more powerful.

I tend to be of the opinion, though I think it probably is old fashioned in a world of social media, that people have more in common with their locale than they do someone 100 miles away who votes the same way. I like that we give voices to communities, though dislike the gerrymandering that has become a feature of our system.

Edited December 13, 2023 by d-d-d-dAz

[Devon Malcolm]

19 minutes ago, deathrey said:

At this point in time, pretty much everything is CM Punks fault.

At least it gives Snitsky a break.

[RedRooster]

4 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

PR disempowers communities (or for the sake of British accuracy, 'constituencies') in favour of collective voices. It says that rather than collating the views of the country on a seat by seat basis (Wigan voted Labour so add one Labour MP to the pot, Reigate voted Tory so chuck a blue one in), it says that x amount of Labour/Tories/Greens/Reformers voted country-wide and we should assign MP's to be reflective of those percentages.

But it doesn't have to - that's not how it works in Scotland. You have your constituency vote, and then you have your list vote - and the list is split up into regions, so therefore the MSPs who are elected as part of this do represent the views of the community - albeit, a larger community. 

5 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

I think for that system to work properly, you need as many people as possible to vote so that you are getting a truly collective, proportionate result, as you're completely levelling the town-by-town, city-by-city differences that can iron themselves out in our FPTP, constituency-based democracy.

It's maybe a nice idea in theory, but again, you have to consider the impact of the uninformed voter. Is it really a proportionate result to what people really think, if a proportion of the electorate doesn't understand what it's voting for outside of what they read in a client-journalist filled media? 

I suspect if someone truly understands or cares about politics and the very real impact Westminster has on their life, they'll be voting anyway. 

[Lion_of_the_Midlands]

4 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

At least it gives Snitsky a break.

And Starmer. 

[d-d-d-dAz]

7 minutes ago, RedRooster said:

 

It's maybe a nice idea in theory, but again, you have to consider the impact of the uninformed voter. Is it really a proportionate result to what people really think, if a proportion of the electorate doesn't understand what it's voting for outside of what they read in a client-journalist filled media? 

I suspect if someone truly understands or cares about politics and the very real impact Westminster has on their life, they'll be voting anyway. 

It's really dangerous to start deciding who is or isn't informed. To political academics or politicians, we're all uninformed. 

It's been a long time since I did my degree's, so forgive my sketchy knowledge of different voting systems, but I believe Scotland adopts the Additional Member System which is a sort of mixed-PR approach, right? I don't know much about its success and/or failures, but I know Scotland has particular undemocratic mechanism built in where if a regional MSP (someone voted through the AMS list system) resigns/retires/steps away from their seat, the ruling party automatically fills it with their own Member, rather than triggering any form of by-election.

But, yeah, to go back to the original point, I did my degree and Masters Degree in Politics and IR, and yet every academic, politician or diplomat I met in that time thought we were all thick as mince (and I went to a pretty good school). It made me realise that politics is like football is like cricket is like movies is like tap dancing (I guess), where even when you think you know all there is to know about it, there is someone else who thinks you're thick as mince.

[Keith Houchen]

 

[SuperBacon]

Don't think I've ever seen that lad before.

1.) He's skinnier Harold Bishop

2.) Where is his chin?

[Keith Houchen]

2 minutes ago, SuperBacon said:

2.) Where is his chin?

Shawn Michaels / Sting / Punk stole it. 

[RedRooster]

21 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

It's really dangerous to start deciding who is or isn't informed. To political academics or politicians, we're all uninformed. 

I'd suggest that it's only really dangerous if a perception of 'uninformed' was being used to exclude people from voting. No decision is made as to who or who isn't informed when mandatory voting isn't in place - short of voters deciding it themselves. 

Given the power of misinformation in modern politics, I just don't see a benefit in forcing people to hold a view on something they either don't understand or hold a firm view on. Of course, there may be research that shows clear benefits to mandatory voting - but from what I can tell, whether or not it actually benefits democracy is a subject of real debate. 

39 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

It's been a long time since I did my degree's, so forgive my sketchy knowledge of different voting systems, but I believe Scotland adopts the Additional Member System which is a sort of mixed-PR approach, right? I don't know much about its success and/or failures, but I know Scotland has particular undemocratic mechanism built in where if a regional MSP (someone voted through the AMS list system) resigns/retires/steps away from their seat, the ruling party automatically fills it with their own Member, rather than triggering any form of by-election.

It's AMS, yes. If a list MSP steps down, a member of the same party will fill the 'vacancy' - generally the person who was the next unelected candidate from the same party on the regional list. So - for example - when Tory MSP Dean Lockhart (Mid Scotland and Fife) stood down last year, fellow Tory Roz McCall took his place. 

[d-d-d-dAz]

9 minutes ago, RedRooster said:

I'd suggest that it's only really dangerous if a perception of 'uninformed' was being used to exclude people from voting. No decision is made as to who or who isn't informed when mandatory voting isn't in place - short of voters deciding it themselves. 

Given the power of misinformation in modern politics, I just don't see a benefit in forcing people to hold a view on something they either don't understand or hold a firm view on. Of course, there may be research that shows clear benefits to mandatory voting - but from what I can tell, whether or not it actually benefits democracy is a subject of real debate. 

It's AMS, yes. If a list MSP steps down, a member of the same party will fill the 'vacancy' - generally the person who was the next unelected candidate from the same party on the regional list. So - for example - when Tory MSP Dean Lockhart (Mid Scotland and Fife) stood down last year, fellow Tory Roz McCall took his place. 

I agree with you generally, but I think in proportional representation (which, FWIW, I think is a settled debate in this country for a generation as the Lib Dems shot that kitten at birth) mandatory voting would potentially help iron out the undue power given to extreme views. 

In our system, i'm very against mandatory voting.

As for Scotland, I'm stepping down before I say anything more stupid as I have close to zero idea what i'm on about. 

[Tim Healys Chutney Spoon]

1 hour ago, Lion_of_the_Midlands said:

Incentivize it then. Every vote cast is worth £1 in the prize pot at each election, paid for by whoever runs the National Lottery. After each election 10 winners are drawn at random from the electoral register. If they voted they get 1 tenth of the prize pot. If they didn't their 10% rolls over to the next election. This only applies to General elections and By-elections. If the devolved parliaments want to set up their own scheme they can. 

Just imagine the email being sent out 'Congratulations you won the UK election lottery fund and are entitled to £X amount of money. Pleaze send to us your entry confirmation and proof of address and account details. Once it's all confirmed we will send the money to the bank account of your choice' 

 

Doesn't look like a scam at all.....