Salvage Hunters - Classic Cars
Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Are Ordinary People Too Stupid To Be Trusted With Voting?
34 Answers
http://
The Left and elite think that most of us are unqualified simpletons who shouldn't take on the responsibility for making decisions of great complexity and sophistication.
/// In the Left-wing New Statesman magazine, Professor Richard Dawkins, the leading evolutionary biologist and renowned humanist was unable to suppress his true feelings that the large slice of humanity who voted Leave were ‘stupid, ignorant people’. He protested that ‘it is unfair to thrust on to unqualified simpletons the responsibility to take historic decisions of great complexity and sophistication’. ///
The Left and elite think that most of us are unqualified simpletons who shouldn't take on the responsibility for making decisions of great complexity and sophistication.
/// In the Left-wing New Statesman magazine, Professor Richard Dawkins, the leading evolutionary biologist and renowned humanist was unable to suppress his true feelings that the large slice of humanity who voted Leave were ‘stupid, ignorant people’. He protested that ‘it is unfair to thrust on to unqualified simpletons the responsibility to take historic decisions of great complexity and sophistication’. ///
Answers
But the greatest difficulty is that the alternative is to leave such decisions to "experts". And we all know how good many of them are at getting it right. This is a strange (but not unsurprising
11:45 Sat 25th Feb 2017
jno, I am particularly fascinated by the Mail article
"Back in the 18th century, political reformer Henry Fox was advocating giving the vote to more people. But only, he insisted, to what he called ‘the better sort’. Not ‘the mob or the mere dregs of the people’. Heaven forbid! Now, in the 21st century, such derogatory sentiments about ‘the people’ are dangerously back in fashion — ever since they dared vote for Brexit in Britain, and for Donald Trump in the United States."
This is classic juxtaposing of completely unrelated things. Last time I checked Trump was, actually, president, and Brexit was, actually, going ahead. I happen to think Dawkins is dead right about the referendum, but a few "derogatory statements" is hardly the same thing as a mythical liberal elite forcing itself on the majority (not at all like the billionaire Donald Trump and his multi-millionaire family and cronies in the White House of course :-) )
"Back in the 18th century, political reformer Henry Fox was advocating giving the vote to more people. But only, he insisted, to what he called ‘the better sort’. Not ‘the mob or the mere dregs of the people’. Heaven forbid! Now, in the 21st century, such derogatory sentiments about ‘the people’ are dangerously back in fashion — ever since they dared vote for Brexit in Britain, and for Donald Trump in the United States."
This is classic juxtaposing of completely unrelated things. Last time I checked Trump was, actually, president, and Brexit was, actually, going ahead. I happen to think Dawkins is dead right about the referendum, but a few "derogatory statements" is hardly the same thing as a mythical liberal elite forcing itself on the majority (not at all like the billionaire Donald Trump and his multi-millionaire family and cronies in the White House of course :-) )
Thanks for the welcome back, aog (and BA).
I’ve been having a deeper look into the NS article. One particular thing stood out for me. Here’s a quote from the Good Professor:
“Some of us don’t believe the people of Britain were ever qualified to speak on such a complex and sophisticated question in the first place. We are those who believe not in plebiscites but in parliamentary democracy, where the people elect representatives qualified – and paid – to deliberate on complex issues and take decisions…”
Let’s take a look at one example (of the 650) representatives who are “…qualified – and paid – to deliberate on complex issues and take decisions…”. Mrs Trudy Harrison was duly elected as the MP for Copeland last Thursday. She joined the Conservative Party last Autumn, was selected for the candidacy and was elected. She is a mother of four children, was formerly a Council Community officer (whatever that is) and her principle claim to fame is running a campaign to save a local primary school. She gained a foundation degree in “Sustainable Communities” (me neither) from Salford University (formerly Salford Technical College). As conscientious and hard-working as I’m sure Mrs Harrison is, is she more qualified than I am to “deliberate on complex issues”? More importantly, is she more qualified than many of her 61,000 constituents on whose behalf, Professor Dawkins suggests,she would cast her vote on whether the UK should retain its membership of the EU?
With a few notable exceptions most MPs are not particularly qualified to take decisions on complex issues any more than many of their constituents are. They are simply lobby fodder who meekly troop through the appropriate lobby as directed by their party puppet masters. I accept that it is not possible to run a country by holding plebiscites on every issue. However the issue of EU membership involves MPs relinquishing, salami style, the country's sovereignty. If, instead of membership of the EU, the question was "Should the UK abandon its Parliament and leave all decisions to the European Commission?" how many people would think it was right and proper for Parliament alone to decide the issue? In my view it amounts to the same thing because there is no doubt in my mind that the ultimate aim of the EU is the establishment of a Federal State with national Parliaments simply acting as Parish Councils under devolved powers.
If Professor Dawkins believes that people like Mrs Harrison are more qualified and have more right to vote on such a fundamental issue than he is then I wonder exactly what he is a Professor of. Because it’s certainly not the Bleeding Obvious.
I’ve been having a deeper look into the NS article. One particular thing stood out for me. Here’s a quote from the Good Professor:
“Some of us don’t believe the people of Britain were ever qualified to speak on such a complex and sophisticated question in the first place. We are those who believe not in plebiscites but in parliamentary democracy, where the people elect representatives qualified – and paid – to deliberate on complex issues and take decisions…”
Let’s take a look at one example (of the 650) representatives who are “…qualified – and paid – to deliberate on complex issues and take decisions…”. Mrs Trudy Harrison was duly elected as the MP for Copeland last Thursday. She joined the Conservative Party last Autumn, was selected for the candidacy and was elected. She is a mother of four children, was formerly a Council Community officer (whatever that is) and her principle claim to fame is running a campaign to save a local primary school. She gained a foundation degree in “Sustainable Communities” (me neither) from Salford University (formerly Salford Technical College). As conscientious and hard-working as I’m sure Mrs Harrison is, is she more qualified than I am to “deliberate on complex issues”? More importantly, is she more qualified than many of her 61,000 constituents on whose behalf, Professor Dawkins suggests,she would cast her vote on whether the UK should retain its membership of the EU?
With a few notable exceptions most MPs are not particularly qualified to take decisions on complex issues any more than many of their constituents are. They are simply lobby fodder who meekly troop through the appropriate lobby as directed by their party puppet masters. I accept that it is not possible to run a country by holding plebiscites on every issue. However the issue of EU membership involves MPs relinquishing, salami style, the country's sovereignty. If, instead of membership of the EU, the question was "Should the UK abandon its Parliament and leave all decisions to the European Commission?" how many people would think it was right and proper for Parliament alone to decide the issue? In my view it amounts to the same thing because there is no doubt in my mind that the ultimate aim of the EU is the establishment of a Federal State with national Parliaments simply acting as Parish Councils under devolved powers.
If Professor Dawkins believes that people like Mrs Harrison are more qualified and have more right to vote on such a fundamental issue than he is then I wonder exactly what he is a Professor of. Because it’s certainly not the Bleeding Obvious.
N.J. // I wonder exactly what he [Dawkins] is a Professor of//
He wasn't ever a "real" professor, his post at Oxford was called;
Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, (whatever that is), a post set up and paid for by a Mr. Simoni - a computer software billionaire, on the strict understanding that the post must be filled by him, and no one else.
He wasn't ever a "real" professor, his post at Oxford was called;
Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, (whatever that is), a post set up and paid for by a Mr. Simoni - a computer software billionaire, on the strict understanding that the post must be filled by him, and no one else.
Dawkins really should stick to the one subject he seems to know a bit about.
I'm confident that most of the time any "idiot" sections of the public cancel each other out leaving the wisdom of the group to emerge dominant. The problems occur most when some individual thinks they know best and has the power to inflict their mistakes on the masses.
I'm confident that most of the time any "idiot" sections of the public cancel each other out leaving the wisdom of the group to emerge dominant. The problems occur most when some individual thinks they know best and has the power to inflict their mistakes on the masses.
Having now read his New Statesman article he is incorrect in just about everything he has put. It is a typical remainer attempt to hope many who had the courage to vote correctly first time might get cold feet if they are forced to vote again simply because someone thinks the democratic majority "gave the wrong answer" ! Typical EU tactic. Democracy has nothing to gain from 'best of three' followed by 'best of five' followed by ...
Not entirely sure why Dawkins should stick to the one subject he knows best. By definition the refutation of his argument ought to be that he's allowed to contribute to subjects he's not so good at -- otherwise if anything you are reinforcing his point!
Also, re Buenchico's suggestion -- shucks. Nothing doing for A-Level Further Maths then?
Incidentally, I disagree with Dawkins. I sort of half feel attracted to the idea now and then, but only in a very selfish and arrogant sense. Experts can be just a little too self-assured from time to time -- and, at least when the public gets a decision wrong then it's everyone's fault and nobody's at the same time. That has to count for something.
Also, re Buenchico's suggestion -- shucks. Nothing doing for A-Level Further Maths then?
Incidentally, I disagree with Dawkins. I sort of half feel attracted to the idea now and then, but only in a very selfish and arrogant sense. Experts can be just a little too self-assured from time to time -- and, at least when the public gets a decision wrong then it's everyone's fault and nobody's at the same time. That has to count for something.
“Democracy has nothing to gain from 'best of three' followed by 'best of five' followed by ...”
Quite so. Instead it should follow the model adopted by Bertram Wilberforce (“Bertie”) Wooster’s Club (“The Drones”). When running their annual darts competition they played the best of eight and the matches very often ended in a draw. Bertie explained to Jeeves that they had tried the best of ten, even the best of twelve but still often ended up with drawn matches. "Will the committee ever come up with a satisfactory solution, Jeeves?" "One can only hope, sir, one can only hope!"
Quite so. Instead it should follow the model adopted by Bertram Wilberforce (“Bertie”) Wooster’s Club (“The Drones”). When running their annual darts competition they played the best of eight and the matches very often ended in a draw. Bertie explained to Jeeves that they had tried the best of ten, even the best of twelve but still often ended up with drawn matches. "Will the committee ever come up with a satisfactory solution, Jeeves?" "One can only hope, sir, one can only hope!"
Chris; //Nobody should ever be allowed to vote unless they've passed A-level Economics at the very least. //
Aren't these A-level economists, the so-called 'experts', the very ones who have brought about the appalling financial disasters of the last and present centuries, for which the tax payers are still having to pick up the bill for their incompetence, while they live out their lives in immunity and luxury?
Aren't these A-level economists, the so-called 'experts', the very ones who have brought about the appalling financial disasters of the last and present centuries, for which the tax payers are still having to pick up the bill for their incompetence, while they live out their lives in immunity and luxury?
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.