PdotMichael
Banned
Didn't the UK have a history of such a voting system where only people with ground and stuff could vote?
But universal suffrage is maybe overrated and wasn't a thing except the last 100 years in the UK anyway.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The UK votes to leave the European Union |OUT2| Mayday, Mayday, I've lost an ARM
- Thread starter Hasney
- Start date
- Status
Didn't the UK have a history of such a voting system where only people with ground and stuff could vote?
But universal suffrage is maybe overrated and wasn't a thing except the last 100 years in the UK anyway.
Why? A vote is essentially a sampling of electorate sentiment, why not scale it to make it representative?
CosmicQueso
Member
One of the worst ideas ever presented on GAF... Neigh... In all the history of political thought.
Interesting paper I saw that might have some relevance to the present discussion. Study on Australia's mandatory voting system showed it increased turnout but not necessarily outcomes:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w22221
http://www.nber.org/papers/w22221
PdotMichael
Banned
But it's representative. One person has one vote.
Peter Ian Staker
Member
You do realize you are basically advocating for the abolition of one of the main pillars of modern democracy. Who is going to decide which demographics the scaling system is going to give an advantage to?
Because when you scale it isn't representative anymore. You just want to fudge the process to get the result you want. Most modern election systems are already skewering the result enough as it is, we don't metacritic algorithms to fuck it up even more.
shinra-bansho
Member
Maybe they can make it three fifths of a vote.
Audioboxer
Member
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
I don't really blame them for not advertising it, people are just lazy. They didn't really advertise enough to eligible Commonwealth voters imo, and it appears there was a lot of fuck ups with overseas votes though.
I'm sure this has already been posted but I thought this was worth posting just in case anyone else hadn't seen it until today: LSE blog argues that the Brexit vote is more about values than economics.
The money shot being how strongly opinions on the EU are correlated with the death penalty.
Seems very important to think about in regards to the general collapse of "mainstream" politics that is happening across the western world.
The money shot being how strongly opinions on the EU are correlated with the death penalty.
Pat Dade at Cultural Dynamics has produced a heat map of the kinds of values that correspond to strong Euroscepticism, and to each other. This is shown in figure 4. Disciplining children and whipping sex criminals (circled), keeping the nation safe, protecting social order and skepticism (‘few products live up to the claims of their advertisers…products don’t last as long as they used to’correlate with Brexit sentiment. These attitude dimensions cluster within the third of the map known as the ‘Settlers’, for whom belonging, certainty, roots and safety are paramount. This segment is also disproportionately opposed to immigration in virtually every country Dade has sampled. By contrast, people oriented toward success and display (‘Prospectors’
Seems very important to think about in regards to the general collapse of "mainstream" politics that is happening across the western world.
Peter Ian Staker
Member
No make it seven elevenths instead.
The point of dual choice referendum is that both options are equal. If you are going to give one option an unfair advantage because you are so afraid of the other option then why organize a referendum in the first place?
Quite the contrary, you're eliminating biases by scaling.
Do a bit of statistical analysis, you'll learn the importance of having a representative sample if you're doing a cross sectional survey, which is what a referendum is.
No, you're entrenching them.
No hesitation from Corbyn on how he voted:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/36757713
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/36757713
Peter Ian Staker
Member
You are not. You want a system that's biased to give a bigger say to smaller groups. No matter who decides which groups those are he will have some bias.
Making a small sample scale to a prediction of the behavior of a bigger group is science.
Dividing a bigger groups votes into arbitrary sections and then just scaling up the votes of those you perceive as underepresented is just fudging shit up.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Yeah was going to say, this has been tried before... with less than desirable results.
No I want the say to be proportional to their size. Not more, not less.
I find it ironic that people here are dog piling on my post for breaking a central tenet in democracy, when already in the Westminster system, your vote is proportional (to something truly arbitrary): your constituency.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
Yea. I'm thinking it would be a political blunder to deny Scotland it's independence in that case.
Nothing good would come out of it.
Merkel says the referendum is irreversible. (For context, she's saying she expects the UK to invoke Art. 50. Not something like "I will force them to leave".)
http://m.heute.de/ZDF/zdfportal/xml/object/44329164
http://m.heute.de/ZDF/zdfportal/xml/object/44329164
Unfortunately we live in a post-fact world. Repeat the idea that Corbyn voted leave long enough and it will become an accepted part of political discourse. The PLP knows that.
jakonovski
Member
Labour putting out the idea that Labour are liars. What an own goal.
I didn't know she was a fan of that film. I mean what does she mean. Anything is reversible or avoidable, or we'd all be fucking dead by now, from the millions of mistakes humanity has made over the years.
More Fun To Compute
Member
The problem with Corbyn is that people don't seem to manage to hold onto what he is saying and take it to heart. He said that he was voting remain and wanted Labour voters to. But he didn't actually like many things about the EU and didn't have any more genuine enthusiasm for Europe than when his faction campaigned to be out in 75. On Europe people seem to expect either a simple pro market centrist position or a knuckle dragging nationalist position.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Well, you are breaking a central tenet in democracy aren't you? We have this quaint old thing known as a secret ballot here, so how do propose you set about getting the information you would need to "scale" the votes, eh?
There's something rather scary about linking the way you voted back into demographic data about you, or into the tax system, or into your NHS records to see how long you'll live or anything like that.
But if that's not what you are proposing, then you are left relying on polling data. So you'd end up scaling millions of people's votes based on a sample of, what, a couple of thousand? What happens next is people nobble the panel, and your enhanced democracy vanishes into totalitarianism before you can say Jeremy Corbyn.
No thanks.
It requires at least two thirds of sitting MPs to declare they have no confidence in the government for an early general election to be held. So as long as Leadsom can command the confidence of at least one third of MPs, she can remain as PM. (Though she may have trouble passing much legislation.)
Separately, Tory MPs can hold their own motion of no confidence within their party against their leader (as happened with Iain Duncan Smith), which I believe requires 25% of Tory MPs to declare.
So IDS is claiming there's a black ops move against Leadsom. Hopefully MI5 do better than they did in Operation Eraser.
This isn't right. 66% is needed to decide to call a GE, but it's still 50%+1 for a vote of no confidence. If there's no vote of confidence in an existing or new government in 14 days then a GE is called.
This isn't right. 66% is needed to decide to call a GE, but it's still 50%+1 for a vote of no confidence. If there's no vote of confidence in an existing or new government in 14 days then a GE is called.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
That's not true.
You need 2/3 of the Commons to call an early General Election, but you only need 50%+1 of those voting to win a no-confidence vote, and if that vote is not reversed by another vote within 14 days, the Government falls and there is a General Election anyway.
Source: Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 section 2
Well they already do have information on the voter: her location. You can't vote outside your constituency.
There's nothing egregious about broad aggregate data such as age group. We're not talking anything personally identifiable.
But enough derailing of this thread. I was thinking out-loud some options for reform. No need to debate it to death.
I stand corrected.
Here's hoping for a 50% +1 vote for no confidence in the case of a Leadsom win then. I'm convinced she's toxic enough to cause the Tory's to lose their majority.
Peter Ian Staker
Member
Percentage of total votes translating directly into the percentage of parliament seats a party gets(provided the percentage threshold needed to enter parliament is low) is the only truly representative system. You don't need scaling to achieve that.
Most election systems, including the Westminster one, are designed to fudge the result into making a parliamental majorities easier in the name of governability. The fact they are arbitrary and biased doesn't make your idea any better
No true. It is liable to participation bias as was the case in the referendum.
Retirees were over-represented.
Huw_Dawson
Member
Frankly, there's not much reason to fear a Leadsom win - the polling so far shows May pretty far in the lead.
zorlaczerohero
Banned
Also if the Tories lost their majority or support and weren't shored up by the right wing non-tory MP's (unionists, ukip etc) a motion of no confidence is a simple majority vote in Parliament, if a new government isn't formed with a motion of confidence within 14 days a general election can be called.
If we did see a break off party form under a remain banner then a motion of no confidence would be possible, but it would mean forming a coalition with one of the big two, and though crossing the floor doesn't trigger a by-election it's risky, especially for MP's in safe seats. As much as I agree with Corbyn's politics he's too far left for any center right to stand beside, just as Leadsom is too far right for the center left to deal with, chances are a government wouldn't be formed within 14 days and there would be a call for a general election.
The PM can only call a GE in two instances, a no confidence vote of 2/3rds of parliament or a motion of no confidence by a simple majority and then as set out above. In the unlikely event that a budget wasn't passed but a motion of no confidence was unsuccessful then i don't have a bloody clue. Probably back to the drawing board on the budget. It would be very unlikely though, it's presumed the rebels over the budget would edge the motion of no confidence through ultimately triggering a GE if the opposition couldn't muster a majority vote.
You can't adjust for people not voting when 'None of the above' isn't an option on the ballot paper.
A number of people, for whatever reasons, chose not to support either side. You can't take their choice not support either side away from them by 'scaling' the vote to account for what their peers voted for.
That's true. Ideally you'd have everyone eligible vote (and give them the option to abstain on the ballot).
There's two constants that occur every time a major party is hitting a crisis
a) A surge of critics from within the party bringing forth their views about the problems of the party (sometimes founded, other times not) and their ideas for the solution - which usually revolves around changing the leadership, because that's easy
b) these voices are given almost guaranteed exposure in the media.
The first thing happens because people want to strenghten their position within the party, how it looks like from outside isn't really important in that situation.
edit: oh yeah, the more you shit on your own party, the greater the exposure in the media! Fuck cohesion, I have a name to make for myself.
What's wrong with not liking things about the EU?
It could be run a lot better, but it's still better to be a part of it.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
I'm sure this has already been posted but I thought this was worth posting just in case anyone else hadn't seen it until today: LSE blog argues that the Brexit vote is more about values than economics.
The money shot being how strongly opinions on the EU are correlated with the death penalty.
Seems very important to think about in regards to the general collapse of "mainstream" politics that is happening across the western world.
Yeah. Alot of the leavers I've met since (or discovered is the right word as I knew them already) don't really have many ideas of how to improve their station in life or even want to. That's not a slight, it's just the "entrepreneural spirit" were people are always scratch ng for the best deal, whether it be in career, relationships or any other aspect of their lifestyle is a bit alien to them.
Not only that, some of those people hate the whole thing entirely, thinking people should be greatful for their lot in life (religion is often involved *sign*)
They want things as they have always been and how they are used to. They can't be reasoned with by pointing out the opportunities that they have thrown away because these are opportunities they would have never attempted anyway.
Alot of this correlates with age, but the overall stubbornness to see things outside of how "they should be" regardless of historical accuracy transcends age, gender and even racial background.
It's literally the crabs in a bucket Mentality.
More Fun To Compute
Member
The problem with not liking the EU is that saying that the EU is bad is not a convincing remain argument. Especially when there is no credible plan for reforming the EU. It should be crystal clear that the national debate was won on very simple propagandist messages and not on nuanced debates about the EU technocratic hegemony working in less well off peoples favour in certain situations.
The failure of a budget is meant to be a construed as a vote of no confidence which sends everyone back to the polls. It's happened a number of times in the UK, and it's constitutional convention in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I have no idea how that works with this act, however.
Edit: Very interesting:
This raises a number of weird scenarios in my head. I can't imagine a situation where the government would lose supply without going back to the polls. It's a three hundred year old constitutional convention. Loss of supply means the government can not spend money.
She's trying to silence voices (in Germany) who are expressing the possibility of a second referendum.
Geminosity
Member
One thing I'm curious about is I see some posts saying that people who voted 'leave' don't like change. If they didn't like change wouldn't they have voted 'remain'?, especially as the majority of voters of any age would've spent not only the majority of their life (if not the entirety) in the EU but noticably the most recent majority of it, aka up to this present day, which means leaving would be 'change' rather than the status quo
JonnyDBrit
Member
One thing I'm curious about is I see some posts saying that people who voted 'leave' don't like change. If they didn't like change wouldn't they have voted 'remain'?, especially as the majority of voters of any age would've spent not only the majority of their life (if not the entirety) in the EU but noticably the most recent majority of it, aka up to this present day, which means leaving would be 'change' rather than the status quo
Perceived change, either present or potential, is probably an important aspect when considering this. So the 'change' implied is a more visible move towards globalism (which outside of large urban areas isn't always so readily apparent), further integration into the EU, and having their doors potentially opened (further) to immigrants both currently within the EU, and from locations such as Turkey. Thus to combat that form of change, which many believed inevitable if we remain part of Europe, one would vote to leave.
Then there's also the potential rejection or protest of change that's gone on in the background of their lifetimes - failing to realise that a departure from the EU won't necessarily undo these things because that's not how economics and culture work - which forms the foundation of 'things weren't always like this' arguments. Remaining in the EU would have been the status quo from some perspectives, but was not and is not for others.
On a different note, discussing the matter elsewhere has had an interesting point raised, but I wanted to check around here to see what others who don't already assume its going to happen would think of it. Basically, one of the people I talk to thinks Britain and the pound might do well at least in terms of currency value in the long run because of... Gold. Specifically, the huge piles of it in the possession of the bank of England, due to the value of gold going up since the results came out. Their thinking was that people taking their money out of the pound and into other currencies will eventually devalue said currencies while the pound will recover, due to being propped up by the value of the gold.
Now my immediate side eye on this was that I'm fairly sure we disconnected the value of the pound from being tied to gold quite some time ago, and I'm not sure if that would be undone so quickly as to benefit from this. Are there any other issues in the idea, because I feel like there should be but I don't know enough about how the value of gold ties into currency to be so certain.
Geminosity
Member
Huh, ok. I think I get it. Maybe ^.^;
Thankies :3
Yes there is. Spoilt ballots are counted separately from invalid ballots.
Linkstrikesback
Member
One thing I'm curious about is I see some posts saying that people who voted 'leave' don't like change. If they didn't like change wouldn't they have voted 'remain'?, especially as the majority of voters of any age would've spent not only the majority of their life (if not the entirety) in the EU but noticably the most recent majority of it, aka up to this present day, which means leaving would be 'change' rather than the status quo
That depends on if you percieve the idea of "don't like change" as they immediately want things to stay as they are right now, i.e. don't change from the current situation.
Anyone saying that people who voted leave don't like change probably mean they don't like the changes that have happened since joining the EU, and would like to go back to the "good old days" or something.
edit: oops, already explained better above.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked