Electoral Idiots...

Evilmags

The basis of this argument is "everyone who disagrees with me is either uncaring or stupid". You may well find it is you who are arrogant amd condescending. 

Emp_Fab

What the fuck have you been smoking to come to that strange conclusion ?  I don't feel that way at all !  My OP was asking for opinions on the hypothesis that a lot of people vote based not on their understanding of policies but on a variety of of other factors such as what their tabloid paper says or what everyone down the pub is voting.

Why does the postulation of a hypothesis have to result in personal attacks on the poster ?  Are so many here really incapable of rational, logical discussion of theories - however absurd they may seem, without resorting to ad-hominems ?  Really ??  Is this place really more like a bear-pit than Question Time ?  How sad if it is.

Moving on, 

monquixote said:

Surely the solution is to improve education in politics.

The problem is self policing anyway as thick people don't tend to vote.

Absolutely.  Education is key.  Do you have any evidence to support your claim that 'thick people don't tend to vote' ?  I wouldn't call them 'thick' btw (the thread title was an attempt to reference Green Day's "American Idiot"), just lacking in interest and understanding of what the parties stand for - yet they still cast their vote.

What I'm ultimately getting at is elections are highly influenced by the votes of people who are casting their votes based on little more than what The Sun says etc, and if you're voting for what a tabloid paper tells you then that's pretty damning.

@fretmeister  Served on a jury twice.  Can't wait for another go.  However, unlike a large chunk of the electorate at election time, I come to my verdict based on the evidence presented to me in court, not what The Sun says or what Jeff down the Dog and Duck thinks.

fretmeister

So why don't you apply that same approach to everything else?

olafgarten

randella said:

I vote for the candidate with the nicest smile.

I'm better than all of you.

That's a tough call going by the pictures on this page. 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017

Bellycaster

Sporky said:

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/sheeple.png

They have no eyes...or faces...Aaaaargh 

Emp_Fab

fretmeister said:

So why don't you apply that same approach to everything else?

Could you clarify that ?

capo4th

Emp_Fab said:

What the fuck have you been smoking to come to that strange conclusion ?  I don't feel that way at all !  My OP was asking for opinions on the hypothesis that a lot of people vote based not on their understanding of policies but on a variety of of other factors such as what their tabloid paper says or what everyone down the pub is voting.

Why does the postulation of a hypothesis have to result in personal attacks on the poster ?  Are so many here really incapable of rational, logical discussion of theories - however absurd they may seem, without resorting to ad-hominems ?  Really ??  Is this place really more like a bear-pit than Question Time ?  How sad if it is.

Moving on, 

monquixote said:

Surely the solution is to improve education in politics.

The problem is self policing anyway as thick people don't tend to vote.

Absolutely.  Education is key.  Do you have any evidence to support your claim that 'thick people don't tend to vote' ?  I wouldn't call them 'thick' btw (the thread title was an attempt to reference Green Day's "American Idiot"), just lacking in interest and understanding of what the parties stand for - yet they still cast their vote.

What I'm ultimately getting at is elections are highly influenced by the votes of people who are casting their votes based on little more than what The Sun says etc, and if you're voting for what a tabloid paper tells you then that's pretty damning.

@fretmeister  Served on a jury twice.  Can't wait for another go.  However, unlike a large chunk of the electorate at election time, I come to my verdict based on the evidence presented to me in court, not what The Sun says or what Jeff down the Dog and Duck thinks.

It's very true.

Look at Brexit people voted for that thinking that we would close our borders and deport everyone whilst creating a Bupa style NHS where everyone would eat bendy bananas and odd shaped carrots.

capo4th

Don't forget previous parliamentary performance !  People have long memories.

Danji

Emp_Fab said:

What the fuck have you been smoking to come to that strange conclusion ? 

I think the same thing with most of your posts.

What sources do you use to come up with your own beyond reproach independent opinion?

chrispy108

Emp_Fab said:

Why does the postulation of a hypothesis have to result in personal attacks on the poster ?  Are so many here really incapable of rational, logical discussion of theories - however absurd they may seem, without resorting to ad-hominems ?  Really ??  Is this place really more like a bear-pit than Question Time ?  How sad if it is.

Because you have a consistently rude tone of writing, which really doesn't invite debate. It doesn't come across as "what does everyone think of my hypothesis?" it comes across as "Everyone tell me I'm right and everyone else is wrong".

Go read your post again, and imagine if I'd typed it. You'd be mocking it too, it's hardly a serious piece of balanced writing.

Drew_TNBD

If there is one thing that brings us all together, it's a tard thread started by our very own Kevin. God I love this shit! Gonna be high all day from this!

chrispy108

I'll write your next post for you:

Emp_Fab said:

"It was a pun on a song title"
"It was hyperbole"
"I'm trying to be like Private Eye"

Heartfeltdawn

CabbageCat said:

Anyone who votes thinking they understand all the factors in play is lying to themselves.

All we have to go on is second-hand information, educated guesses, rough philosophy and trust. One man's knee-jerk hearsay is another man's earnest research and all of it is filtered through our own personal agendas and a hundred past political arguments.

We're all human. We're all stupid. Standing above the rest of the world pretending you aren't feeling ignorant and uninformed might fool some people, but not everyone.

The first line is correct. Nobody can understand all the factors because nobody has a mind that can process every single strand and thread. The second is also very true 

The third though is a cop out. I know fuck all about mathematics and have friends who find mathematics simpler than pissing straight. They are informed about it, I'm not. I am stupid compared to them and feel no shame in saying this about myself and putting them on a higher mathematical standing to myself. So why shouldn't this be true of politics?  Some people do know more and have a better understanding.

Sporky

Emp_Fab said:

My OP was asking for opinions on the hypothesis that a lot of people vote based not on their understanding of policies but on a variety of of other factors such as what their tabloid paper says or what everyone down the pub is voting.

Have you read what you posted?

(a) You basically called 60% of the electorate stupid, lazy and vain.

(b) Now you're complaining about ad-hominems.

There may be a link between (a), (b), and people not taking you awfully seriously.

Heartfeltdawn said:

(I) have friends who find mathematics simpler than pissing straight.

They're probably considering the effects of gravity, air resistance, non-laminar fluid dynamics and so on - at which point pissing straight becomes jolly complex.

Sambostar

When it comes to local elections and all the busybody out of towners who want to get elected just so they can tell everyone else what to think and do  and interfere because their own lives are inadequate I just think of this.  I can't see how I'm stupid or lazy for not voting for them.

Emp_Fab

Sporky said:

Emp_Fab said:

My OP was asking for opinions on the hypothesis that a lot of people vote based not on their understanding of policies but on a variety of of other factors such as what their tabloid paper says or what everyone down the pub is voting.

Have you read what you posted?

(a) You basically called 60% of the electorate stupid, lazy and vain.

(b) Now you're complaining about ad-hominems.

There may be a link between (a), (b), and people not taking you awfully seriously.

I don't see why.  If I say I think 60% of the electorate vote without really understanding what they are voting for, why should personal insults be a suitable response?  I'm trying to have an adult discussion about the subject.

You wouldn't find ad-hominems acceptable on Question Time, so why are they acceptable here?

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't give them the right to insult you.
If you're incapable of replying with civility then you need to learn some manners.

Evilmags

Knowing the motives of 60% of the population is impossible. Making a judgement on these supposed motives is dumb and illogical. Poor people are quite entitled to conclude that Labour damages the economy and increases their chances of unemployment and misery. It's fairly condescending to accuse them of stupidity or false conciousness (Marx framed this argument a long time ago). 

Drew_TNBD

Emp_Fab said:

Sporky said:

Emp_Fab said:

My OP was asking for opinions on the hypothesis that a lot of people vote based not on their understanding of policies but on a variety of of other factors such as what their tabloid paper says or what everyone down the pub is voting.

Have you read what you posted?

(a) You basically called 60% of the electorate stupid, lazy and vain.

(b) Now you're complaining about ad-hominems.

There may be a link between (a), (b), and people not taking you awfully seriously.

I don't see why.  If I say I think 60% of the electorate vote without really understanding what they are voting for, why should personal insults be a suitable response?  I'm trying to have an adult discussion about the subject.

You wouldn't find ad-hominems acceptable on Question Time, so why are they acceptable here?

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't give them the right to insult you.
If you're incapable of replying with civility then you need to learn some manners.

Smell my cheese you bobber!

Emp_Fab

Evilmags said:

Knowing the motives of 60% of the population is impossible. Making a judgement on these supposed motives is dumb and illogical. Poor people are quite entitled to conclude that Labour damages the economy and increases their chances of unemployment and misery. It's fairly condescending to accuse them of stupidity or false conciousness (Marx framed this argument a long time ago). 

Knowing the motives of any percentage of the population is impossible.  Guessing at what the motives are of a significant portion of the electorate is perfectly reasonable however when it's an extrapolation of evidence obtained first-hand.  If I discuss politics with 20 people and it's obvious that over half of them are voting based on something other than their own researched beliefs, then it's reasonable to postulate that might be reflected nationally, as tiny as the sample size is.

The reasons people vote for candidates are more varied than you appear to believe.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30129990

Can I ask a question of the folks mocking me ? - Do you believe that there aren't any voters who cast their ballot whilst not really knowing what the party they are voting for stands for ?

chrispy108

No, I totally agree with you that lots of people make uninformed decisions in a polling booth. I think they should be allowed to do so though.

If you'd have started with "Lots of people are making uninformed decisions according to x, y, z surveys. Do you think it's a problem? Are there any solutions? What about this idea?" then you'd have got a much more balanced argument than the patronising post you started with.