On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 00:14:05 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

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?

Because it would indicate to those looking to manage the world *FOR
US* that we aren't happy with the way it's being done?

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?

Then you come up with a system that's more inclusive. ;-)

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

I didn't suggest it was but you have to start somewhere.

If you were looking to market a new product and you handed out mini
survey forms and one of the options was 'Meh', then I know that would
be a perfectly valid, interesting and useful response and have them
re-thinking how they might present / advertise / do the thing
differently.

See, if you use turnout measurement as an indicator of electorate
engagement will only give you a measure of potential apathy. Give them
a 'NOTA' then they will have 'bothered to turn up and vote' and maybe
then do some polls and create some other question for people to vote
on.

And in this day and age there is no reason that sort of thing could be
done electronically.

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.

Lobby the people who in many cases are there for themselves to do
something different and how much public sympathy do you think you will
get to 1) something new and 2) that they aren't generally interested
in in the first place?

The point being that there is a *massive* difference between trying to
vote out a despot in Africa when you actually stand a real chance of
getting a machete across your neck if you try to vote and being
'upset' by them painting the town hall a different colour.

Q. What percentage of those who actually turn up to vote in elections
in the UK.

a) Are actually fully aware of all aspects surrounding their
'decision'.

b) Voting because they 'should' and doing what they have always done
or toss a coin or vote on some trivial (ITRW) point?

And this is when the 'wrong' choice could make matters worse for the
majority for the next 4 years?

snip

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.

Quite. ;-)

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

Well, I can't ever see a world where I could agree but ... ;-)

ISTM you are setting yourself a set of tests that need to be met before
you are prepared to participate.

1) I think we all should.
2) There should be some before any of us should be allowed to.

If you have to take a test to demonstrate competence to drive a car,
or become a Nurse, or even be a nail stylist, why wouldn't you need to
do the same to be allowed to make decisions that could impact
everyone?

However as it often the case, there is
no possibility that the tests could ever be satisfied. Therefore you
justify your inaction.

It's funny how we *can* be tested for most things though, including if
we know enough about the country we hope to live in before we are
allowed in (or even visit on holiday, if the Customs shows on TV are
to be believed)?

The reality is that no one will ever be "truly informed" or "know
enough".

Check.

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?).

Much of which relies on having an interest in the first place, even
for a gut feeling. Anything else is just a lucky dip.

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.

Quite ... and politics shouldn't really be and there is a good chance
it will continue to be with the current 'system'.

An analogy if I may. When my mate wanted a 3D printer he knew he
didn't have the skillset required to achieve his goal so he asked me
if I was willing to be part of it.

He asked me because, he knew I was reasonably good with 'engineering',
conceptual design, electronics, electrics, was already familiar with
the Arduino micro controllers and RC modeling and so was in a way
better chance of getting something going than him.

He asked me because he knew I would be a good person to help, he
didn't ask anyone else because the odds of them having that skillset
would be very low. He wouldn't ask me about football, plants,
religion, astronomy, politics, finances or medical stuff because he
knows I have little idea (because I'm 'not interested').

Whilst 'politics' is something we are all involved in (like it or
not), not everyone has the mindset to be able to find, consider and
make a considered / logical / fair judgment ... and worse, the more
they look the less likely they are to be sure what the right decision
might be for any given scenario.

If you have already made up your mind or have 'a plan' yourself, then
I guess you could discard many options like the game of 'Guess Who'.
;-)

I'm sure that is how many people 'decide' how to vote.

Are they black ... flap flap flap
Are they a fit woman ... "
Do they support my football team ... "
Do they promise me free stuff ... "

Ah, so, apparently I'm going to vote for ...


Cheers, T i m