News26 mins ago
Do You Support Dictatorship Lite?
Excellent CPG Grey video
" Why the UK Election Result is the Worst in History "
Worth a few minutes of your time, and your comments would be appreciated.
" Why the UK Election Result is the Worst in History "
Worth a few minutes of your time, and your comments would be appreciated.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well that is exactly the sort of thing that makes me very irate. Not only is it complete nonsense, it's presentation in media (a video in this case but I've experienced the same thing from books) there is no way to challenge the falsehoods and debating tricks as they occur and so the whole thing simply builds of that which is not accepted from the start making it all sound so reasonable but only because it is going down a false path. and of course a softly spoken voice trying it's hardest to seem so reasonable when reason has been deserted, is also unacceptable
As expected we immediately get to the error of not understanding that we do not vote for parties but representatives for the area. It is this failure to understand that is where the problem begins even if the narrator claims it is something else. Although he does admit to knowing really later but tries and fails to dismiss this fatal flaw in the argument.
In "Realityland", if few citizens have no idea that is their choice. It is not a problem with the system. In any system some may opt not to fully participate, that is their choice.
It is pretending that it isn't a competition on a local level is disingenuous. Trying to claim the opposite is true is deliberately deceitful.
The nation will be run according to the democratic wishes of the people, not an elite within parties, as is being pushed in the video, if folk accept the reality of a local representative and vote for who will push the majority view in their constituency. Asking questions such as, "Which party do you want running things", is compounding the illusion that it is otherwise, and encouraging the largest threat to democracy, the party system.
Also, stating that there is a misrepresentation error, where none exists, is particularly deceitful. It is a debating trick of stating an opinion, often clearly flawed, as if it were fact, in the hope it isn't questioned (which, of course, it can't be in a video or book) and using it as an invalid foundation upon which to build an erroneous viewpoint/conclusion.
But back to the video, given that there are no errors it mean you can sum as many of them up, as much as you like, it'll still equal zero errors.
After all the nonsense regarding representation, it is put to the viewer as a conclusion that the system is broken, when what it really shows is the initial claims were wrong.
If one elects a representative that truly puts forward the majority view in the community then no further diversity is required, democracy has already been served.
And then the video goes back again to the false claim that we have an unrepresentative parliament. Simply not true. The biggest problem it has is, as I stated above, that the representatives must put forward the majority view and not capitulate to the view of some party they joined. Ban parties and the problem goes away.
People happy with the present system may not have found that "their team" won at all. It is ludicrous to slip the claim as if it followed. In fact, as mentioned above, they are NOT voting for a team. They are voting for a representative for the constituency they are in. But it seems some defamers of Democracy continue to deny this.
If you want a system where the process is fair, stop supporting parties and stop insisting all of them should get their members in parliament even though they did not win in any area: ensure all candidates are independent. This wouldn't disenfranchise anything.
And it is an absolutely disgusting claim to say (even if you are merely claiming "it looks like", no one is that naive) that folk who do not agree with the spouted sophism are supporters of dictatorship. Only folk unworthy of discussing things with, would do that. It's the old trick of insulting those who don't agree in the hope of getting folk to think that they don't want to be in that group, better just agree and not think about it any more.
As expected we immediately get to the error of not understanding that we do not vote for parties but representatives for the area. It is this failure to understand that is where the problem begins even if the narrator claims it is something else. Although he does admit to knowing really later but tries and fails to dismiss this fatal flaw in the argument.
In "Realityland", if few citizens have no idea that is their choice. It is not a problem with the system. In any system some may opt not to fully participate, that is their choice.
It is pretending that it isn't a competition on a local level is disingenuous. Trying to claim the opposite is true is deliberately deceitful.
The nation will be run according to the democratic wishes of the people, not an elite within parties, as is being pushed in the video, if folk accept the reality of a local representative and vote for who will push the majority view in their constituency. Asking questions such as, "Which party do you want running things", is compounding the illusion that it is otherwise, and encouraging the largest threat to democracy, the party system.
Also, stating that there is a misrepresentation error, where none exists, is particularly deceitful. It is a debating trick of stating an opinion, often clearly flawed, as if it were fact, in the hope it isn't questioned (which, of course, it can't be in a video or book) and using it as an invalid foundation upon which to build an erroneous viewpoint/conclusion.
But back to the video, given that there are no errors it mean you can sum as many of them up, as much as you like, it'll still equal zero errors.
After all the nonsense regarding representation, it is put to the viewer as a conclusion that the system is broken, when what it really shows is the initial claims were wrong.
If one elects a representative that truly puts forward the majority view in the community then no further diversity is required, democracy has already been served.
And then the video goes back again to the false claim that we have an unrepresentative parliament. Simply not true. The biggest problem it has is, as I stated above, that the representatives must put forward the majority view and not capitulate to the view of some party they joined. Ban parties and the problem goes away.
People happy with the present system may not have found that "their team" won at all. It is ludicrous to slip the claim as if it followed. In fact, as mentioned above, they are NOT voting for a team. They are voting for a representative for the constituency they are in. But it seems some defamers of Democracy continue to deny this.
If you want a system where the process is fair, stop supporting parties and stop insisting all of them should get their members in parliament even though they did not win in any area: ensure all candidates are independent. This wouldn't disenfranchise anything.
And it is an absolutely disgusting claim to say (even if you are merely claiming "it looks like", no one is that naive) that folk who do not agree with the spouted sophism are supporters of dictatorship. Only folk unworthy of discussing things with, would do that. It's the old trick of insulting those who don't agree in the hope of getting folk to think that they don't want to be in that group, better just agree and not think about it any more.
And how are voters who have the sense to see that the argument being put forward in the video is false, get to make the rules ? They don't. So again this is more false nonsense.
There are not many better ways than FPTP, since we have the best available (party existence notwithstanding).
And since the government isn't illegitimate, one can not have a government illegitimacy score. Nor is the system fundamentally broken. To state either is so are yet further falsehoods.
This video is exactly the sort of rubbish it annoys me to take notice of. It adds nothing to the discussion and simply creates ill feeling. I'd be grateful if folk post this sort of propaganda in future (in any subject) would label it as such so only the masochists need view it and provide a response.
There are not many better ways than FPTP, since we have the best available (party existence notwithstanding).
And since the government isn't illegitimate, one can not have a government illegitimacy score. Nor is the system fundamentally broken. To state either is so are yet further falsehoods.
This video is exactly the sort of rubbish it annoys me to take notice of. It adds nothing to the discussion and simply creates ill feeling. I'd be grateful if folk post this sort of propaganda in future (in any subject) would label it as such so only the masochists need view it and provide a response.
"...we do not vote for parties but representatives for the area."
This is not a flaw at all. The entire argument for PR is that we shouldn't be doing this in the first place, ie national governments should be elected based on national rather than local considerations. The argument for AV and similar methods is that we can choose our local representatives a lot better. In neither case is pointing out what we currently do a killer.
This is not a flaw at all. The entire argument for PR is that we shouldn't be doing this in the first place, ie national governments should be elected based on national rather than local considerations. The argument for AV and similar methods is that we can choose our local representatives a lot better. In neither case is pointing out what we currently do a killer.
National governments are not based of local consideration but on national considerations already. It's just the representation of the local area on national matters is served by selecting an individual to put those local views on national matters forward. If this is the entire argument then PR is flawed at source. Although I can accept that is PR is used to elect a local representative rather than involve parties then the problem is smaller. Then it is just the unlikelihood of getting anything other than a middle of the road, fall between two stools, parliament. Perhaps never having the ability to pass what is really needed.
@Gromit,
So, based on that vid, it would be in the Tories' own interests to promote increased diversity of political parties, even to the point of sponsoring UKIP, Plaid, SNP and any other party who might split the vote and help them get past the post in the lead.
As for the "Dictatorship lite" comment, surely everybody displays some degree of wanting to impose their views and way of doing things on others, who are not sufficiently like they are?
So, based on that vid, it would be in the Tories' own interests to promote increased diversity of political parties, even to the point of sponsoring UKIP, Plaid, SNP and any other party who might split the vote and help them get past the post in the lead.
As for the "Dictatorship lite" comment, surely everybody displays some degree of wanting to impose their views and way of doing things on others, who are not sufficiently like they are?
It's clearly not as simple as that, OG, and -- rather like most FPTP proponents -- you seem surprisingly content to dismiss the subtleties of what voters are actually likely to be considering when they cast their vote. All of which subtlety is cast aside as irrelevant by any single-member seat system anyway, which is unavoidable unless you move to multiple-seat constituencies, but even more so by FPTP that insists on one, and only one, vote going to one, and only one, candidate. This destroys any hope the voter had of saying, as is true in many cases, "I like these two people the most but can't really say which I'd prefer between them", or "anyone but Mr. A", or "sod the lot of them, but I'd prefer this lot in power if any of them has to be". All of which destroys the claim that FPTP is, at least perfectly, representative as you claim.
And then you can throw in spoiler effects, the violation of the "Condorcet loser criterion" (ie that if candidate A would lose against any other single candidate they shouldn't be able to win), a few other more technical points, and the intriguing scenario of what happens in a statistical tie. And if you still feel it's truly representative, then you have a markedly different definition of representation from most. And if you can't be persuaded that a system that, in theory, allows a candidate with 1%+1 of all votes to be elected ahead of 99 other candidates all with 1% of the vote each, is clearly unrepresentative, then that confirms that there can be no discussion. FPTP is protected from some criticism because luckily in practice the problems can be buried behind fewer candidates having any real popularity in the first place, so that the worst results are "only" three-way splits, but if a system has a the potential to spit out absurdities then the way it works has to be looked at.
And, again, it seems that you are dismissing even the possibility of keeping the local representative, but modifying the way that representative is chosen (eg by simply giving each voter ten votes, that he can split among the candidates however he sees fit, or by ranking candidates in order of preference). Like TTT, it seems you are making the mistake of calling this PR as well, when it is not.
And then you can throw in spoiler effects, the violation of the "Condorcet loser criterion" (ie that if candidate A would lose against any other single candidate they shouldn't be able to win), a few other more technical points, and the intriguing scenario of what happens in a statistical tie. And if you still feel it's truly representative, then you have a markedly different definition of representation from most. And if you can't be persuaded that a system that, in theory, allows a candidate with 1%+1 of all votes to be elected ahead of 99 other candidates all with 1% of the vote each, is clearly unrepresentative, then that confirms that there can be no discussion. FPTP is protected from some criticism because luckily in practice the problems can be buried behind fewer candidates having any real popularity in the first place, so that the worst results are "only" three-way splits, but if a system has a the potential to spit out absurdities then the way it works has to be looked at.
And, again, it seems that you are dismissing even the possibility of keeping the local representative, but modifying the way that representative is chosen (eg by simply giving each voter ten votes, that he can split among the candidates however he sees fit, or by ranking candidates in order of preference). Like TTT, it seems you are making the mistake of calling this PR as well, when it is not.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.