Intelligent voting

Scioch

hooradiation wrote: »

Then they should abstain form voting until they know what they're voting on.
It's a simple concept.

One which would enable any government to pass anything as long as it was obscure enough. Voting to stop something because you think it hasnt been made clear enough is a perfectly valid reason to vote.

Wow, so the only source of information for people is the media. It's a crying shame we never got around to creating some kind of virtual, world spanning network of computers absolutely full of information. A damn, damn shame.
Or educated people to the point of being able to read and reason on their own from multiple sources. That'd have been swell too.

Gold star for you too it seems. Arent we the clever lads !! Do you disagree with the statement that the main avenue for informing voter's of a referendum is the media ? I dotn think your would because that would be particularly ignorant to think so. So if the information coming out in the media (which is what makes up the vast majority of what discussion on social media is about) is too vague and obscure to inform people sufficiently then your gonna end up with lots of uninformed people.

Its nice to base your view in an ideal word though like you do. Nice but absolutely pointless. If the government want a yes vote they campaign for a yes vote. Because they know (as does anyone else with an ounce of cop on) that most people dont have a background in european law and rely on the information thats given in the media to decide which way they will vote.

Pretty much, I consider it contemptible that people who would openly admit they don't understand what they're doing would still go and vote.
This is not unreasonable, they are terrible people.

Terrible people now ? That is unreasonable as a matter of fact, pretty ignorant too. Perhaps we are talking about different people here, I'm not talking about people who dont understand what they are doing I am talking about people who vote no because they dont understand the implications of the compact. Its not unreasonable to reject something which you do not understand because you do not understand it. If its vague and unclear how this will affect things its not unreasonable to vote against it on those grounds as that will stop any changes.

Cry me a river, kid.
Stop lauding laziness and ignorance.

I don't care if you believe that the "rest of this democracy" think that voting with total ignorance is just fine.
They are wrong and so are you.

I wonder why you're so insistent that it's ok that people who have no damn clue what they're doing, by their own admission, should just vote anyway. What do we gain in this scenario? That if enough people just vote blindly that we'll magically reach the best decision?
That the result is more valid by sheer weight of numbers involved in reaching it, regardless of the understanding those voting had of the issue.

And I do love the 'retort' to the idea that people need to take their responsibilities seriously is "why don't you go spoon feed them, then?"

And as a final repetition, because you can't seem to grasp it. I understand and accept that all votes are equal, but what I'm driving at and you're constantly ignoring, is that if you want to vote you have a responsibility to be informed about what it is you're voting on.
If you can't do that then you should do the decent thing and stay at home. And there is no shame in that.

However claiming it's too hard or people didn't spoon feed you enough information or whatever else you want to make up isn't an excuse, it's a cop out and those who engage in it and those who are apologists for it are as bad as each other.

I wont respond to the rest of your gibberish as I dont think your even arguing against anything I have actually said. You responded to me remember ?, make some sort of an attempt to figure out my point before launching into your "people are stupid, I r smarter" speeches.

hooradiation

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't see how anyone could be sure they understand the treaty. It was written by hundreds of politicians, solicitors, economists and all sorts of highly educated collage graduates across Europe. How can one average Joe citizen understand what's really happening? This like all votes is a popularity contest, the people will vote for the side they feel they trust.

This is getting into another issue, which is whether or not we ought to be putting this stuff to plebiscite anyway (and we probably shouldn't), but if we're going to insist upon this method then we'd damn well better start making an effort.

And frankly it's not *that* hard. The notion that "it's written by all these smart people, therefore it's hard, therefore I won't bother" is far more prevalent than it ought to be. Still a bit of cop out.

Honestly, if we had the government tell us we're too thick to make a decision like this, we'd suddenly have 4 million or so people very well versed in the matter at hand. But left alone, we like to play at being too stupid to read....

hooradiation

LordSmeg wrote: »

One which would enable any government to pass anything as long as it was obscure enough. Voting to stop something because you think it hasnt been made clear enough is a perfectly valid reason to vote.

it's a valid reason to stay away.
There is no excuse for not understanding what you're voting on, no matter how much you wish there were.

LordSmeg wrote: »

Gold star for you too it seems. Arent we the clever lads !! Do you disagree with the statement that the main avenue for informing voter's of a referendum is the media ? I dotn think your would because that would be particularly ignorant to think so. So if the information coming out in the media (which is what makes up the vast majority of what discussion on social media is about) is too vague and obscure to inform people sufficiently then your gonna end up with lots of uninformed people.

Well, you keep making excuses for people if you feel you must. It's pathetic, but seeing as you believe they're just too damn thick to know any better it's par the course.

LordSmeg wrote: »

Its nice to base your view in an ideal word though like you do. Nice but absolutely pointless. If the government want a yes vote they campaign for a yes vote. Because they know (as does anyone else with an ounce of cop on) that most people dont have a background in european law and rely on the information thats given in the media to decide which way they will vote.

So the people are too dumb to understand the issue, how simply fascinating.

LordSmeg wrote: »

Terrible people now ? That is unreasonable as a matter of fact, pretty ignorant too. Perhaps we are talking about different people here, I'm not talking about people who dont understand what they are doing I am talking about people who vote no because they dont understand the implications of the compact. Its not unreasonable to reject something which you do not understand because you do not understand it. If its vague and unclear how this will affect things its not unreasonable to vote against it on those grounds as that will stop any changes.

If "I can't predict the future with a high degree of accuracy" was a valid reason to vote no then no referendum would ever pass.
It's lazy reasoning for lazy people.
Try harder, be better.

LordSmeg wrote: »

I wont respond to the rest of your gibberish as I dont think your even arguing against anything I have actually said. You responded to me remember ?, make some sort of an attempt to figure out my point before launching into your "people are stupid, I r smarter" speeches.

Good boy, fail at understanding everything, then leave.

Scioch

melekalikimaka wrote: »

so voting on something you dont understand is a smart thing to do?


you do understand voting no does not mean NOTHING will happen, quite the opposite.

You can read cant you ? The answer to those questions is in the post you quoted. You do also understand I didnt say nothing will happen ? I said no changes will be made if the compact is rejected which is true. Those who want this fiscal compact to be ratified are campaigning to get a yes vote by informing people about it and why they should vote yes.

If they dont bother informing people then by your reasoning nobody should vote only those who have been informed. So the more obscure the details are the less say the people get about it. If the government cannot inform the people as to why they should vote yes in this referendum then in all liklihood they will vote no. Some will do it from being misinformed about how it will affect cuts and austerity, others will do it because it hasnt been made clear enough to them and they feel like it shouldnt be ratified until it has been made clear and others will do it because they do not want a fiscal compact. Its a yes or no situation and if its not shown it should be a yes then its gonna be a no.

As I said if people dont vote because they dont understand it then it would be very much in the governments interest not to inform people. Which some would argue they tried to do with lisbon1. Its up to those who wish to implement this to convince the people it should be implemented.

Scioch

hooradiation wrote: »

it's a valid reason to stay away.
There is no excuse for not understanding what you're voting on, no matter how much you wish there were.

Yeah great, propose a change to the constitution fail to inform people about it and then tell everyone they shoudlnt vote unless they understand it. Still not sure you know what a democracy is.

Well, you keep making excuses for people if you feel you must. It's pathetic, but seeing as you believe they're just too damn thick to know any better it's par the course.

So the people are too dumb to understand the issue, how simply fascinating.

Your the one who thinks they are too thick to have a valid opinion so pull the other one on that. If your proposing a change to something you have to explain why and gain support for it, its not a case of they are implementing something unless they are stopped its a case of they can only implement it if people agree with it. If you want people to agree you inform them if not you have absolutely no right to whinge about uninformed voters.

Good boy, fail at understanding everything, then leave.

So very frustrating listening to someone call others shítty, contemptible terrible people becauause they have the cheek to vote how they want to vote. I'm sorry I cant listen to you any more. Thats not me failing to understand you its me not wanting to waste any more time listening to you.

K-9

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't see how anyone could be sure they understand the treaty. It was written by hundreds of politicians, solicitors, economists and all sorts of highly educated collage graduates across Europe. How can one average Joe citizen understand what's really happening? This like all votes is a popularity contest, the people will vote for the side they feel they trust.

True but I prefer reading up on this and say opinions from respected economists on it rather than election manifestos which are largely bull, especially in Ireland with coalitions.

kneemos

I think whatever way you look at it the bottom line is that the purpose of a vote is to make an informed decision. There's no shortage of info, quite the opposite.

FoxT

I have read up a bit on the treaty & I think I have a reasonable understanding it, BUT.

- I do not understand the risks & consequences of voting YES
(Example: How will the 'structural defecit' be calculated ?)

and
- I do not understand the risks & consequences of voting NO
(Example: Can we sign up to the treaty at a later stage?)


I believe nobody knows the answers to these & similar questions, and both the yes & no sides are lying at least some of the time.

I am leaning towards a 'NO' vote.

- Ireland must not & should not accept responsibility for Bank bailout debt.
- Europe MUST develop a monetary policy/aka QE/aka ECB prints more money as part of the solution here.
- A 'YES' is an indication that I see the treaty as the best solution. It is not.
- A 'NO' will hopefully put at least some pressure on politicians to come up with a better way.

Of course, I could be wrong...

Unfortunately the damage is done the previous shower decided to take on the banks debt as our debt . The country is now in massive debt and needs to borrow money if we don't vote yes the european purses will close.
We as a nation will still have to borrow money on the open Market which will mean higher interest rates .
Saying no I like saying no I don't wanna get drunk after drinking 10 shots .
That's how I understand it anyways

Feathers

hooradiation wrote: »

And frankly it's not *that* hard. The notion that "it's written by all these smart people, therefore it's hard, therefore I won't bother" is far more prevalent than it ought to be. Still a bit of cop out.

At Lisbon I, the head of the referendum commission was on a panel interview on RTÉ radio & was asked a straight question around one of the campaign points — can't remember exactly, but it was something along the lines of "Could abortion be introduced in Ireland, if someone in another country took a case to the European Court on the basis of the European Convention on Human Rights?"

The guy spend 2-3 minutes of live air-time shuffling through papers, before giving a complete non-commital answer. If an Irish judge heading up an independent commission can't say with certainty the affect a treaty will have, how do you expect the average citizen to grasp it?

The trouble with EU referenda is that it's often not black or white — it's not like divorce, where you can say 'do you want to introduce it, yes or no?'

(Edit: Couldn't think of his name, it was Iarfhlaith O'Neill, a High Court judge)

Feathers

Sorry QMV, not abortion. From RTÉ news website:

When asked to explain one of the listed items which is to be dealt with by QMV rather than unanimity, the members of the commission were unable to explain what it meant.

The area concerned is listed as 'arrangements for the control of implementing powers'. Mr Justice O'Neill said there was not precision about exactly what it meant, but was unable to clarify further.

hooradiation

LordSmeg wrote: »

Yeah great, propose a change to the constitution fail to inform people about it and then tell everyone they shoudlnt vote unless they understand it. Still not sure you know what a democracy is.

Well, insisting that "democracy" means whatever you've decided and nobody has any responsibility to educate themselves has certainly worked wonders for you here.

LordSmeg wrote: »

Your the one who thinks they are too thick to have a valid opinion

Well done on showing me that you don't read what's in front of you.
Let me spell this out for you. Again.

I think that knowingly going to the polls with no idea what the issue is and voting is wrong. And not that I've said "hey, you, you have no idea! Go away!" that the person them self knows full well they don't understand but are voting anyway.

Now, care to explain to me how you managed to get your little nugget of lies from the above.

LordSmeg wrote: »

so pull the other one on that. If your proposing a change to something you have to explain why and gain support for it, its not a case of they are implementing something unless they are stopped its a case of they can only implement it if people agree with it. If you want people to agree you inform them if not you have absolutely no right to whinge about uninformed voters.

Aww, the poor little grown adults, incapable of reading or learning on their own. How terrible.
But, seriously, it is the responsibility of every voter to be an informed voter. Stop expecting everyone else to do that work for them, they want to vote - do some basic fucking research first.

LordSmeg wrote: »

So very frustrating listening to someone call others shítty, contemptible terrible people becauause they have the cheek to vote how they want to vote.

Well done, you're really going out of your way to demonstrate the depths of your dishonesty.

LordSmeg wrote: »

I'm sorry I cant listen to you any more. Thats not me failing to understand you its me not wanting to waste any more time listening to you.

Run along then, boy.

Scioch

^^^ Well done on being a dick, because thats about all you've managed there.

TheChizler

LordSmeg wrote: »

^^^ Well done on being a dick, because thats about all you've managed there.

He might be being a dick, but you haven't acknowledged what he's asking you. Do you think that a voter is responsible to make a reasonable attempt at understanding the treaty before voting?

I think we would all agree with you that a no vote would be understandable if there was a successful effort to restrict public access to information, but that isn't the case here. The complete wording of the treaty has been delivered to most homes in the country, at considerable cost. You don't have to have a degree in EU law to get the gist of it. Anyone can attain a reasonable understanding and have some idea of the possible risks/outcomes by skimming it, discussing it with others, and watching a bit of tv.

kneemos

Feathers wrote: »

At Lisbon I, the head of the referendum commission was on a panel interview on RTÉ radio & was asked a straight question around one of the campaign points — can't remember exactly, but it was something along the lines of "Could abortion be introduced in Ireland, if someone in another country took a case to the European Court on the basis of the European Convention on Human Rights?"

The guy spend 2-3 minutes of live air-time shuffling through papers, before giving a complete non-commital answer. If an Irish judge heading up an independent commission can't say with certainty the affect a treaty will have, how do you expect the average citizen to grasp it?

The trouble with EU referenda is that it's often not black or white — it's not like divorce, where you can say 'do you want to introduce it, yes or no?'

(Edit: Couldn't think of his name, it was Iarfhlaith O'Neill, a High Court judge)

All we're looking for is an informed opinion not a difinitive analysis.

plein de force

this time around after the lisbon treaties i decided i'd read up on it myself and make my own mind up without listening to either the yes or no side because last time they both came out with bare faced lies and im sure this time is no different

Scioch

TheChizler wrote: »

He might be being a dick, but you haven't acknowledged what he's asking you. Do you think that a voter is responsible to make a reasonable attempt at understanding the treaty before voting?

I think we would all agree with you that a no vote would be understandable if there was a successful effort to restrict public access to information, but that isn't the case here. The complete wording of the treaty has been delivered to most homes in the country, at considerable cost. You don't have to have a degree in EU law to get the gist of it. Anyone can attain a reasonable understanding and have some idea of the possible risks/outcomes by skimming it, discussing it with others, and watching a bit of tv.

I didnt see him ask a question, he was just being a dick.

Do people have a responsibility to be informed voters ? Yes, there is a certain responsibility there but no obligation and to categorise people who vote no because of a lack of understanding as terrible people, shítty people, worthy of contempt is going a bit overboard. These people have a right to vote, they are under no obligation to research anything before doing so. Every vote is as valid as any other regardless of the reasons it was made.

You can point and name call all you want but it doesnt change anything, we all know how most people make their minds up on these things. There is also a responsibility for those who created this treaty and who want it ratified to inform people about it and also a responsibility for those in office who disagree with it to inform people why it shoudlnt be passed.

We all know the majority of voters wont do their own research on this but take their cue from those they have voted into office. A lot of people wouldnt be confident that they would understand these things and trust their representatives to tell them what it all means.

There is no moral obligation to do anything before voting, there cant be and still protect the privacy and right for someone to vote. Its a private and personal matter, their reasons are their own and cannot be invalid if their vote is to be valid. I dont see all this name calling as anything other than "I wish we lived in an ideal world, I hate stupid people". That applies to a hell of a lot of things and boils down to nothing but one persons personal opinion and gripes because others choose to do something they dont want them to do.

Feathers

kneemos wrote: »

All we're looking for is an informed opinion not a difinitive analysis.

Actually I was addressing the point of voter responsibility to inform themselves. Obviously people should make some effort. But equally the government shouldn't be putting forward deliberately ambiguous or obtuse treaties in the first place if they want them to pass. (Altthough the whole idea of the government having a side at all is wrong IMO )

TheChizler

Feathers wrote: »

(Altthough the whole idea of the government having a side at all is wrong IMO )

I can see what you're saying, that they shouldn't be trying to influence the people they're elected to represent, but that's what the Referendum Commission is there for I suppose. If you look at it from the point of view that their role is to do what they feel is best for the country then it's warranted. Maybe they should emphasise their support stems from their memberships of respective parties, not their role as Taoiseach or Ministers.

Feathers

TheChizler wrote: »

I can see what you're saying, that they shouldn't be trying to influence the people they're elected to represent, but that's what the Referendum Commission is there for I suppose. If you look at it from the point of view that their role is to do what they feel is best for the country then it's warranted. Maybe they should emphasise their support stems from their memberships of respective parties, not their role as Taoiseach or Ministers.

I would say that's only true when they're making a decision on our behalf. That's not what a referendum is about though, it's meant to be them asking for our decision & then acting on it & representing it as necessary.

As a partial group with undue influence on the electorate, I'd prefer to see a mortitorium on elected officials (or Oireachtas members at least) giving opinions during referenda. Political parties could still give press releases through their members of staff & it would rightly reduce the media coverage received. It's too hard to separate where 'Enda Kenny, Taoiseach' ends and 'Enda Kenny, FG member/ordinary citizen' begins.

Might be a little extreme, but would avoid the problems we have at present. Are current system fails as the "upside-down pyramid" model of influence/decision-making that modern democracy is meant to be.

While canvassing for a Yes vote in the referendum in Limerick today, Mr Kenny said a Yes vote was a yes to the euro, to Europe and the European Union

— RTÉ News

We're talking about people educating themselves about the issues, but they have to wade through the mire of political spin around it first, straight from the mouths of people who are meant to be the most informed…

Laois_Man

promethius42 wrote: »

If most people wouldn't be capable of passing such a test and thus being unable to participate in a vote, then wouldn't this lead to politics becoming even more unrepresentative and possibly unfair than it already is?

No. It's exactly like voting for your neighbouring country in Eurovision even though you haven't heard the song. the vote isn't representative of any policy, ideals or viewpoint whatsoever!