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?

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 :-)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

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.


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.

If it can work (and be perfectly normal / acceptable) for that,
logical consistency says it should equally be valid for politics (and
religion etc).

Cheers, T i m

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by apathy? Please explain.

You therefore imply you were apathetic to the Brexit referendum, yet
have consistently whinged about the outcome. You don't make any logical
sense.

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. ;-)

If you want to make a real protest, then stand for being a councillor.
You are even allowed to vote for yourself.

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.

Sounds like laziness and consequential firefighting to me. The point of
democracy is to empower the people. Obviously democracy is wasted on the
likes of those who actively propose to spoil their paper who are too
idle or too thick to research the issues at hand.

If it can work (and be perfectly normal / acceptable) for that,
logical consistency says it should equally be valid for politics (and
religion etc).

When you mention logic and religion in the same sentence you really have
lost the plot.

On 21/04/2021 22:56, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/04/2021 22:24, T i m wrote:

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.

Sounds like laziness and consequential fire-fighting to me. The point of
democracy is to empower the people. Obviously democracy is wasted on the
likes of those who actively propose to spoil their paper who are too
idle or too thick to research the issues at hand.

ISTM that T i m is at least being consistent here, in both the microcosm
and the macrocosm. The former represents his approach to local elections
and the latter to the EU Referendum.

The consistency between these lies in in his "Don't know enough" trope
that he uses to justify his inaction in taking part the voting process.
I don't know how long he has lived in the area in which he now resides,
but he has clearly made no effort to follow local affairs. Regarding the
EU Referendum, it is obvious to all that he lived in the EU for 43 years
and then claimed insufficient knowledge of it. Since no-one at all knows
everything at local or international levels - how could they? - it is
clear that T i m has invented a mechanism that suits him as it results
in him doing nothing except whinge about 'the system'. With such a
self-fulfilling prophecy in place, perhaps he would be more suited to
life in a monastery rather that the real world,

If it can work (and be perfectly normal / acceptable) for that,
logical consistency says it should equally be valid for politics (and
religion etc).

When you mention logic and religion in the same sentence you really have
lost the plot.

Quite.


--
Spike

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 08:04:13 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 21/04/2021 22:56, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/04/2021 22:24, T i m wrote:

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.

Sounds like laziness and consequential fire-fighting to me. The point of
democracy is to empower the people. Obviously democracy is wasted on the
likes of those who actively propose to spoil their paper who are too
idle or too thick to research the issues at hand.

ISTM that T i m is at least being consistent here, in both the microcosm
and the macrocosm. The former represents his approach to local elections
and the latter to the EU Referendum.

And many other things.

The consistency between these lies in in his "Don't know enough" trope
that he uses to justify his inaction in taking part the voting process.

Correct (and at lest I'm being honest, even if I'm underestimating my
knowledge compared to many).

I don't know how long he has lived in the area in which he now resides,

My entire life.

but he has clearly made no effort to follow local affairs.

Correct. I have however made considerable effort following those
things I'm interested in, like the majority.

Regarding the
EU Referendum, it is obvious to all that he lived in the EU for 43 years
and then claimed insufficient knowledge of it.

Not a 'claim' but a fact, again, along with the majority (if the truth
be told).

Since no-one at all knows
everything at local or international levels - how could they?

I have never expected everyone to know everything about anything.
However, to be able to make a 'rational' decision' you need to have a
good / accurate overall understanding and most people don't.

snip left brainer troll bs

If it can work (and be perfectly normal / acceptable) for that,
logical consistency says it should equally be valid for politics (and
religion etc).

When you mention logic and religion in the same sentence you really have
lost the plot.

The 'logic' was re the viewpoint, not the subject, but thanks for
playing troll. 4/10

Cheers, T i m

On 22 Apr 2021 09:30:21 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

I think he means antipathy.

Nope, I meant what I typed.

I'm really 'not bovvered' about any of it (or I wouldn't turn up but
spoil my paper) because 'the people' will (and do) ensure that any of
the *really* bad things are stopped in their tracks.

If not the people, you just need to treat your local councilor to a
round of golf and some good food and drink and you can do what you
like. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 22/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:
On 22 Apr 2021 09:30:21 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

I think he means antipathy.

Nope, I meant what I typed.

I'm really 'not bovvered' about any of it (or I wouldn't turn up but
spoil my paper) because 'the people' will (and do) ensure that any of
the *really* bad things are stopped in their tracks.

If not the people, you just need to treat your local councilor to a
round of golf and some good food and drink and you can do what you
like. ;-)


for someone who lacks interest in the current system you seem to spend a
lot of time telling others what you think is wrong with it

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 11:36:49 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 22/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:
On 22 Apr 2021 09:30:21 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

I think he means antipathy.

Nope, I meant what I typed.

I'm really 'not bovvered' about any of it (or I wouldn't turn up but
spoil my paper) because 'the people' will (and do) ensure that any of
the *really* bad things are stopped in their tracks.

If not the people, you just need to treat your local councilor to a
round of golf and some good food and drink and you can do what you
like. ;-)


for someone who lacks interest in the current system you seem to spend a
lot of time telling others what you think is wrong with it

And the link between those two things isn't obvious to you then I
guess. ;-(

And there was me thinking you were one of the ones who 'got it'. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On 22/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:
On 22 Apr 2021 09:30:21 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

I think he means antipathy.

Nope, I meant what I typed.

I'm really 'not bovvered' about any of it (or I wouldn't turn up but
spoil my paper) because 'the people' will (and do) ensure that any of
the *really* bad things are stopped in their tracks.

If not the people, you just need to treat your local councilor to a
round of golf and some good food and drink and you can do what you
like. ;-)

Cheers, T i m


people should remember 7-UP (Granada TV). Neil wanted to be
an astronaut but after dropping out of Uni, working on a building site
(and clearly suffering from a mental issue in the programs), he ended
up standing for local election as a Lib Dem councillor and was elected
(probably with a turnout below 20%).
In one of the programs he admitted to making a rambling speech in the
council chamber, talking total gibberish and none of the other
councillors said a word. Clowns like this can have the final say over
important planning and other issues.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 12:16:57 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 22/04/2021 10:54, T i m wrote:
On 22 Apr 2021 09:30:21 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

I think he means antipathy.

Nope, I meant what I typed.

I'm really 'not bovvered' about any of it (or I wouldn't turn up but
spoil my paper) because 'the people' will (and do) ensure that any of
the *really* bad things are stopped in their tracks.

If not the people, you just need to treat your local councilor to a
round of golf and some good food and drink and you can do what you
like. ;-)

Cheers, T i m


people should remember 7-UP (Granada TV). Neil wanted to be
an astronaut but after dropping out of Uni, working on a building site
(and clearly suffering from a mental issue in the programs), he ended
up standing for local election as a Lib Dem councillor and was elected
(probably with a turnout below 20%).
In one of the programs he admitted to making a rambling speech in the
council chamber, talking total gibberish and none of the other
councillors said a word. Clowns like this can have the final say over
important planning and other issues.

So, first you try to take the **** and then you agree with me? Pull
yerself together ffs.

Cheers, T i m

On 22 Apr 2021 11:21:22 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 22 Apr 2021 at 10:54:24 BST, T i m wrote:

On 22 Apr 2021 09:30:21 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

I think he means antipathy.

Nope, I meant what I typed.

I'm really 'not bovvered' about any of it (or I wouldn't turn up but
spoil my paper) because 'the people' will (and do) ensure that any of
the *really* bad things are stopped in their tracks.

So in fact you can't make your mind up whether you're apathetic about it (i.e.
not bovvered), or whether you really *are* bovvered and so experience
antipathy towards the current system. Which is it?

You started playing with the words. I have made my position clear to
everyone but trolling left brainers.

And here's a fact: once you're elected, you represent *all* your constituents,
not just those who voted for you or even just those who voted.

And you think I wasn't aware of that fact, after repeatedly thanking
you for voting everone out of the EU for the last 4 years?

And this is the
case even if you're elected unopposed (i.e. no other candidate stood against
you).

I would have though that would be even more the case, not just 'even'?

If you're elected unopposed then there isn't even a vote; you're
officially declared elected even before polling day.

Lovely. So, like I said, 'just like a World Champion', just of those
who went in for it.

So you can call that councillor with your issue any time of day or night and
it's their job to help you. No golf required.

Ah, again we see the left brainer logic blinkering your real world
understanding of all this. ;-(

Whilst I'm sure it makes for a good usher or counter, it's not so good
for understanding how the world *actually* often works, which is
strange considering your issue with 'snouters' in the EU?

OK, decide to build some locally unwanted building with all sorts of
promises to how it's going to bring work to the area, how you are
going to make improvements to the local environment and help with
local community projects, whilst making sure you get as many
councilors onboard with invites to tours of similar projects and '(of
course) with all the associated 'freebies' and watch the project go
though, in spite of a petition of 5000 signatures from the local
people who are against it, because they see the truth through the BS.

Or the approval that finally get's granted on that monstrosity
extension ...

Cash for questions anyone?

Cheers, T i m

On 22/04/2021 13:43, T i m wrote:
On 22 Apr 2021 11:21:22 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 22 Apr 2021 at 10:54:24 BST, T i m wrote:

On 22 Apr 2021 09:30:21 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

I think he means antipathy.

Nope, I meant what I typed.

I'm really 'not bovvered' about any of it (or I wouldn't turn up but
spoil my paper) because 'the people' will (and do) ensure that any of
the *really* bad things are stopped in their tracks.

So in fact you can't make your mind up whether you're apathetic about it (i.e.
not bovvered), or whether you really *are* bovvered and so experience
antipathy towards the current system. Which is it?

You started playing with the words. I have made my position clear to
everyone but trolling left brainers.

There is no play with words. Clearly from resorting yo abuse you don't
understand the difference between apathy and antipathy.

Not being bothered sounds more like apathy.

https://www.classicthesaurus.com/unb...ve_undisturbed

And here's a fact: once you're elected, you represent *all* your constituents,
not just those who voted for you or even just those who voted.

And you think I wasn't aware of that fact, after repeatedly thanking
you for voting everone out of the EU for the last 4 years?

And we thank you for your spoilt vote.

And this is the
case even if you're elected unopposed (i.e. no other candidate stood against
you).

I would have though that would be even more the case, not just 'even'?

If you're elected unopposed then there isn't even a vote; you're
officially declared elected even before polling day.

Lovely. So, like I said, 'just like a World Champion', just of those
who went in for it.

So you can call that councillor with your issue any time of day or night and
it's their job to help you. No golf required.

Ah, again we see the left brainer logic blinkering your real world
understanding of all this. ;-(

Most councillors are responsive. It's how they get elected.

Whilst I'm sure it makes for a good usher or counter, it's not so good
for understanding how the world *actually* often works, which is
strange considering your issue with 'snouters' in the EU?

You've lost the plot, what has a Rhinogradentia to do with the EU.

OK, decide to build some locally unwanted building with all sorts of
promises to how it's going to bring work to the area, how you are
going to make improvements to the local environment and help with
local community projects, whilst making sure you get as many
councilors onboard with invites to tours of similar projects and '(of
course) with all the associated 'freebies' and watch the project go
though, in spite of a petition of 5000 signatures from the local
people who are against it, because they see the truth through the BS.

You really have lost the plot, best explain.

Or the approval that finally get's granted on that monstrosity
extension ...

Cash for questions anyone?

Then it's your duty to stand against those you dislike so much. However,
given the tripe you post here you might still find them more popular
than support your policies.

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 |
\================================================= ================/

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

On 22/04/2021 09:55, T i m wrote:
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?

Only your vote counts in an election. A spoilt vote is a wasted vote and
counts the same for anyone who doesn't vote.

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. ;-)

There isn't one. We prefer a system where you vote for a person. It's
the best there is.

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.

A badly worded form. No survey works like that.