Ooh! Ooh! I voted!

electrogrimey

cocoa wrote: »

I would want to act as if I was on an interviewing panel, see full history of the applicant and have at least a half hour interview with them, and even then I would not fancy my chances of choosing in the best interests of either myself or the country. That would take a lot of time.

This I can, to some extent agree with. It sometimes is hard to find information about candidates, especially independents, and you can never know how they will act if elected.

cocoa wrote: »

It is my belief, again, based on the information gathered and conclusions drawn by my subconscious, that a random choice has better chances of a favourable result than an attempt at an informed choice. We simply cannot know enough, and even if we could (having, say, 7 or so days straight available with which to gather such information), our judgement is still poor. So if I were to vote, I would sit down with a hat, and the candidates names, and work with that.

I realise you're being hypocritical, although I don't completely understand the point your making by it...but do you really believe this? I would think that, even if one can't be omnipotent, it is at least better to vote with as much information as possible than to randomly elect somebody.

yummy91

Posted here before saying that it was a huge letdown voting for the first time but I found out today that my first pref in the locals got voted in and it actually feels really good now because he's a decent fella who might actually do a bit of good.

Stev_o

My only problem with Irish politics is that it's way too bland and blurry. There's not a definitive line that separates the two major parties (FF and FG) their basically two rival organisations who's rivalry dates back to the foundation of the state. Go out on the streets and ask the ordinary joe what is the major differences between FF and FG policies and they'll probably run away. Labour is trying to get a gripe hold on the balance of power which is great to see but again it's going to be many many many years before they are in a position to be able to win a big enough majority to enter government.

cocoa

electrogrimey wrote: »

I realise you're being hypocritical, although I don't completely understand the point your making by it...but do you really believe this? I would think that, even if one can't be omnipotent, it is at least better to vote with as much information as possible than to randomly elect somebody.

Hmm, believe is possibly too strong, but I do suspect it's true. I don't have the time nor the desire to properly research it, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if it could be proven (and there is, in all likelihood, ways of properly analysing it) that a random choice yields a higher probability of success* than informed decision.

*where success is defined as either the best candidate for the job, or the candidate who does the job in the way most favourable to your own particular situation. although that's not an excellent definition either and 'best should be defined but... meh...

electrogrimey

But say for examble some Irish wing of the BNP started up in Ireland, maybe running two candidates. Then, a random selection could end up with 1) BNP, 2) BNP, 3) Libertas, etc, whereas even with the minimum research someone could make a better decision than that.

cocoa

electrogrimey wrote: »

But say for examble some Irish wing of the BNP started up in Ireland, maybe running two candidates. Then, a random selection could end up with 1) BNP, 2) BNP, 3) Libertas, etc, whereas even with the minimum research someone could make a better decision than that.

well, that's an argument for a small amount of informed elimination and *then* random selection really... Put it this way, an informed choice yields a terrible candidate 10 tries out of 10, random selection only chooses this candidate 1 time out of 10.

(well, not really, but the point stands)

Time Magazine

cocoa wrote: »

well, that's an argument for a small amount of informed elimination and *then* random selection really... Put it this way, an informed choice yields a terrible candidate 10 tries out of 10, random selection only chooses this candidate 1 time out of 10.

(well, not really, but the point stands)

As far I can see, you're talking absolute nonsense. Are you really suggesting it's not possible for a person to make anything other than an terrible choice, and that random assignment is better?

Really?

KnifeWRENCH

cocoa wrote: »

Put it this way, an informed choice yields a terrible candidate 10 tries out of 10, random selection only chooses this candidate 1 time out of 10.

Huh?

I believe that if people are informed, they'll make better choices. Unless I'm picking you up worng, you're saying humans can't be trusted to make informed choices and everything should just be done at random.

Yeah....somehow I don't see that working out too well.

cocoa

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

Huh?

I believe that if people are informed, they'll make better choices. Unless I'm picking you up worng, you're saying humans can't be trusted to make informed choices and everything should just be done at random.

Yeah....somehow I don't see that working out too well.

Those most fit to govern, are quite often and ironically, those least likely to win the popularity of the people.

JC 2K3

<mod>
As long as the condescension is kept to a minimum and there're no personal attacks, I don't think there's any problem having a serious discussion about teenage attitudes to voting etc. in this thread.
</mod>

Personally, I reckon I would need months of studying to make a properly informed decision of who to vote for. I don't believe that sitting down for an hour or two and reading election propaganda from the various sides is really that much better in the grand scheme of things than someone voting randomly. Though I would concede that there do exist parties/candidates that one really shouldn't vote for, and knowing who these are would be important (However, I would expect that the liklihood of random voting allowing the emergence of hugely radical changes to be extremely low given the political situation of the state right now).

electrogrimey

As little as election propaganda tells you if taken at face value, if you learn to read between the lines you can learn a lot more about the candidate, like that fact that the Maurice Ahern leaflet I got used the phrase "my brother Bertie" about 6 times...

Pygmalion

electrogrimey wrote: »

As little as election propaganda tells you if taken at face value, if you learn to read between the lines you can learn a lot more about the candidate, like that fact that the Maurice Ahern leaflet I got used the phrase "my brother Bertie" about 6 times...

Or the Libertas leaflets show that Libertas are willing to pull lies out of their ass and attempt to be on both sides of pretty much every issue at once :P.

Shacklebolt

Pygmalion wrote: »

Or the Libertas leaflets show that Libertas are willing to pull lies out of their ass and attempt to be on both sides of pretty much every issue at once :P.

"Did you know that the EU payed 500'000 for a ski-slope..... ON FLAT GROUND?

Declan knows how to stop this waste!"

(Thats more or less a direct quote.)

Time Magazine

cocoa wrote: »

Those most fit to govern, are quite often and ironically, those least likely to win the popularity of the people.

You have a valid point. However your conclusion about random draws being better is... well, weak. Also, the definition of "fit to govern" is subjective. You may be interested to read about the wisdom of crowds in relation to this.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Personally, I reckon I would need months of studying to make a properly informed decision of who to vote for. I don't believe that sitting down for an hour or two and reading election propaganda from the various sides is really that much better in the grand scheme of things than someone voting randomly.

There's a considerable learning curve. Given the convergence of Irish political opinion towards the centre and the consequently relatively limited choice of parties available, most people could identify their ranking within an hour of guided research. Any research thereafter would be fine straw-picking. Using EUProfiler will give you a reasonably accurate mapping of your political views in less than ten minutes.

cocoa

The Economist wrote: »

You have a valid point. However your conclusion about random draws being better is... well, weak. Also, the definition of "fit to govern" is subjective. You may be interested to read about the wisdom of crowds in relation to this.

Hmm, that was an interesting read, but I would argue that it doesn't apply directly to the irish (or, possibly, any) voting system because we don't take a spectrum of candidates, vote, and then average the votes. Quite the contrary, it seems moreso to be based on something he lists as a block to crowd wisdom, herd mentality within parties. In other words it lacks the fourth element needed for crowd wisdom, aggregation.

(The whole idea of random selection being better than cognitive choice only occured to me, and it really is just an idea that I find interesting. I'm not so much arguing my point of view, as arguing the side of random selection, out of curiosity to see how this plays out)

Time Magazine

cocoa wrote: »

In other words it lacks the fourth element needed for crowd wisdom, aggregation.

Aggregation is done in the polling centre. Just as a stock market price reflects market wisdom, the election of a candidate (especially by means of PR-STV imho) reflects the political wisdom. It's a point that Surowiecki makes repeatedly throughout the book but that's not referenced on the Wiki. (BTW you can have the book delivered for €6.)

(The whole idea of random selection being better than cognitive choice only occured to me, and it really is just an idea that I find interesting. I'm not so much arguing my point of view, as arguing the side of random selection, out of curiosity to see how this plays out)

Cool.

I think we're getting off-topic though.

Richard Cranium

I voted for the first time last Friday. It felt great.

I have followed politics closely since I was about 9 (that's half my life by now). I have completely avoided blindly inheriting the political opinions of my parents, and I thought long and hard for months about who would get my vote, why I would vote for them and in what order of preference.

I know voting is really really really important and should only be talked about with utmost earnestness and solemnity, but in all honesty the county council will do pretty much the same job regardless of whether Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil has the majority (especially now that the construction industry has gone to pot and no one has the money to bribe planners anymore).

The whole time I was in the polling booth I couldn't help wishing that I was voting in a general election or the Lisbon II referendum- something much more important than who collects the bins outside my house. I know I'm being slightly flippant, but I really don't think it would have been that big a deal not to have known about all the candidates on the ballot paper.

KnifeWRENCH

The Economist wrote: »

Any research thereafter would be fine straw-picking. Using EUProfiler will give you a reasonably accurate mapping of your political views in less than ten minutes.

Hmm, interesting.....apparently I'm a lot more anti-EU than I thought!
These were the results I got:

Sinn Fein - 76.6%
Green Party - 73.9%
Socialist Party - 72.8%
Labour - 66.3%
Fine Gael - 50%
Libertas (eww!) - 46.4%
Fianna Fail - 42.1%

I thought I would be higher for Labour, a little higher for FF, lower for FG and much lower for Libertas.

My closest match in Europe (83.3%) was Folkebevægelsen mod EU, a Danish party who want Denmark out of the EU!

JC 2K3

I got the Socialists, followed by Sinn Féin, followed by the Greens.

I'd never vote for either of the first two. I usually vote Green.

electrogrimey

To get back on topic, I think what is important is to introduce some kind of voting education, maybe even a day in school in 6th year for people turning 18, or a leaflet distributed with your ballot paper, maybe briefly outlining the policies of all candidates in your area, because the amount of people who think you have to fill every box etc. is ridiculous.

Time Magazine

electrogrimey wrote: »

To get back on topic, I think what is important is to introduce some kind of voting education, maybe even a day in school in 6th year for people turning 18, or a leaflet distributed with your ballot paper, maybe briefly outlining the policies of all candidates in your area, because the amount of people who think you have to fill every box etc. is ridiculous.

Everyone (?) is taught the basics in CSPE.

I agree that there should be a leaflet distributed with the ballot paper voter registration card though. In fact I think what would be far better than the current blanket-bomb of spam you get would be if every house were sent a little booklet with each candidate in their area given one page of space to write "Why you should elect me", unedited unless what they write is untrue. Then ban political leaflets.

Stev_o

The Economist wrote: »

Everyone (?) is taught the basics in CSPE.

I agree that there should be a leaflet distributed with the ballot paper voter registration card though. In fact I think what would be far better than the current blanket-bomb of spam you get would be if every house were sent a little booklet with each candidate in their area given one page of space to write "Why you should elect me", unedited unless what they write is untrue. Then ban political leaflets.

No one is taught anything in CSPE you just sit their and act the maggot due to the subject being the single biggest waste of time in secondary school.

Acacia

Stev_o wrote: »

No one is taught anything in CSPE you just sit their and act the maggot due to the subject being the single biggest waste of time in secondary school.

I'd agree to an extent- but only because it's taught in the Junior Cert cycle as opposed to the Leaving Cert cycle (which is much closer to the voting age- makes more sense to me.)

I don't think 13-14-15 year olds have a whole lot of interest in how the electoral process works or the difference between the Dail and the Seanad.

Piste

I was talking with someone last night about the whole "right to vote". He says it shouldn't be a right at all, and that it should be earned. The obvious problem with this is only educated, literate people could vote, and in order to keep the uneducated, illiterate people from voting the government could refuse to educate them or provide facilities for them to become responsable citizens.

Maybe a good idea would be in a few years time to change the rules so that from, say 2015 everyone must sit a politics exam (it could be done as part of the LC, as a core subject and used for points) and a pass in politics is required to earn the right to vote, sort of like a driving test.

I don't think this idea is too bad, but then again there are the obvious drawbacks of people leaving school early and being kept down by the system as they have no say in how the country is run.

amacachi

Piste wrote: »

I was talking with someone last night about the whole "right to vote". He says it shouldn't be a right at all, and that it should be earned. The obvious problem with this is only educated, literate people could vote, and in order to keep the uneducated, illiterate people from voting the government could refuse to educate them or provide facilities for them to become responsable citizens.

Maybe a good idea would be in a few years time to change the rules so that from, say 2015 everyone must sit a politics exam (it could be done as part of the LC, as a core subject and used for points) and a pass in politics is required to earn the right to vote, sort of like a driving test.

I don't think this idea is too bad, but then again there are the obvious drawbacks of people leaving school early and being kept down by the system as they have no say in how the country is run.

I think it's a fairly daft idea tbh. Like it or lump it the point of democracy is one person, one vote.
It definitely annoys me that my vote is being counter-balanced by people who have no idea how anything works, but boohoo, just something everyone has to accept.

Stev_o

Piste wrote: »

I was talking with someone last night about the whole "right to vote". He says it shouldn't be a right at all, and that it should be earned. The obvious problem with this is only educated, literate people could vote, and in order to keep the uneducated, illiterate people from voting the government could refuse to educate them or provide facilities for them to become responsable citizens.

Maybe a good idea would be in a few years time to change the rules so that from, say 2015 everyone must sit a politics exam (it could be done as part of the LC, as a core subject and used for points) and a pass in politics is required to earn the right to vote, sort of like a driving test.

I don't think this idea is too bad, but then again there are the obvious drawbacks of people leaving school early and being kept down by the system as they have no say in how the country is run.

That is singly the worst idea for a democratic country i have ever heard. Defeats the whole point of democracy and there is absolutely nothing stopping a government decide we will make it so hard that only the very upper class could pass and vote us in.

KnifeWRENCH

The Economist wrote: »

Everyone (?) is taught the basics in CSPE.

CSPE is a ridiculous subject though. Everyone sees it as a doss class; any bit of study at all will get you an A or a B. No one takes it seriously. "Recycling is good, racism is bad" - that's about as much as you learn really.

I like the idea of having Politics as a Leaving Cert subject; I certainly would have considered doing it.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I got the Socialists, followed by Sinn Féin, followed by the Greens.

I'd never vote for either of the first two. I usually vote Green.

Depending on the election, I vote either Labour or Sinn Fein. (I don't think the Socialist party runs any candidates in my area.) Voted SF at the European and local elections, but will vote for Labour at the next general election because our local Labour TD is very good.

Time Magazine

Stev_o wrote: »

No one is taught anything in CSPE you just sit their and act the maggot due to the subject being the single biggest waste of time in secondary school.

I'd tend to agree, so maybe it should be harder. Or at least make it mandatory that everyone must know at least how to vote to pass. IIRC it does teach this, maybe it just doesn't come up on the exam etc.

Piste wrote: »

I was talking with someone last night about the whole "right to vote". He says it shouldn't be a right at all, and that it should be earned. The obvious problem with this is only educated, literate people could vote, and in order to keep the uneducated, illiterate people from voting the government could refuse to educate them or provide facilities for them to become responsable citizens.

Maybe a good idea would be in a few years time to change the rules so that from, say 2015 everyone must sit a politics exam (it could be done as part of the LC, as a core subject and used for points) and a pass in politics is required to earn the right to vote, sort of like a driving test.

I don't think this idea is too bad, but then again there are the obvious drawbacks of people leaving school early and being kept down by the system as they have no say in how the country is run.

I made this argument four years ago . Now I realise how awfully undemocratic it is.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

I like the idea of having Politics as a Leaving Cert subject; I certainly would have considered doing it.

It wouldn't work at educating those who don't know how to vote though, because they'll pick Home Ec/Woodwork/Physics instead. It might be a good idea if we want to get people into stuff like policy jobs, though.

Piste

From that post you linked I can say you're much younger than I thought you were!

sock puppet

The Economist wrote: »

I made this argument four years ago . Now I realise how awfully undemocratic it is.

Have you changed your username since? Just that The Economist would be a slightly unusual username for an 18 year old:pac: