On 21/04/2021 22:24, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 21:39:57 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 21/04/2021 13:20, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:22:06 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 21/04/2021 12:01, John Rumm wrote:
On 20/04/2021 20:17, T i m wrote:

With the upcoming local elections I had planned to spoil my paper [1]

I have never really understood why people do that[1] Is it the belief
that it sends some kind of message?


It may send a message.

Quite and they are counted so have a tangible 'value' as such (even
though the number may be very low in most cases). Now, if *enough*
people understood that that was a formal option and did the same
*maybe* the system could be changed to better reflect what the very
people it was supposed to represent might want?

What "better" system do you propose?

One that allows for people to formally express their apathy for the
status quo for one.

How is that useful?

If I were a candidate, and the message you passed back to me was "meh,
not interested, can't be bothered", it's hardly actionable information
is it?

ISTM an election is not the time to bitch about the electoral system.

Lobby your elected representatives with a proposal of a "better" system,
and generate enough public sympathy for it, then you might get the
opportunity to vote new legislation for the way the system itself works.

I asked this question in this thread because I *do* care about
democracy and that starts with the very people who have *put
themselves up* to represent us.

Stand for election then :-)

And why would I do that! I appreciate in your world of black and
white, that would be the only other option. ;-)

See, like (I suspect) the majority, I *really* don't know enough about
it (at any level) to make a truly informed decision and until
something happens that means I need to learn more, I'll keep my head
in the sand, just like most people do re animal cruelty and
exploitation etc.

As it was once said laws and sausages, to retain respect for them, it's
best to not see too closely how they are made.

(actually I have seen how both are made, and find the process resulting
in chipolatas far less ugly and unsettling!)

ISTM you are setting yourself a set of tests that need to be met before
you are prepared to participate. However as it often the case, there is
no possibility that the tests could ever be satisfied. Therefore you
justify your inaction.

The reality is that no one will ever be "truly informed" or "know
enough". So they have to go with gut feeling, or balance of
probabilities, or historical perspective (i.e. candidate X is majoring
on policy Y... has that been attempted in the past? How did it work out
then? Are enough factors still the same that the same outcome is likely?
Do I want that outcome?).

If it can work (and be perfectly normal / acceptable) for that,

it seems unlikely that it can...

logical consistency says it should equally be valid for politics (and
religion etc).

Frequently the same thing - both are heavily influenced by a belief system.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/