- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,696
- Likes
- 37,432
Sorry for your not being able to comprehend. But I've not written nor do I think anything resembling what you posted.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Elections and voting (in general) ...
- Thread starter L5730
- Start date
- Status
What happens to someone who does not vote?
I think the forum is best served when we all channel our 'Inner Thomas'.
In our recent referendum here in the UK a colleague made a point that really struck me as getting to the core of many questions about democracy:
"Would you ask a group of patients to vote on what the surgeon should do next?"
It raises the point, raised by the OP, of whether democracy is damaged by how informed voters are, and whether they are competent in making correct voting decisions based on their information. Clearly in the context of a medical procedure, you want decisions to be made by highly informed and reasoned professionals. In the context of a democratic vote, forcing an entire population to vote means disregarding their individual levels of salient knowledge, or ability to use their knowledge effectively. Logically you might progress to asking how to screen potential voters as being competent to vote or not, but this is clearly fraught with practical and moral issues. Who makes the test? What are the questions? What knowledge is needed pass and how should voters get it? It soon gets unimaginably complex.
ASR often strikes me as a fascinating microcosm of human collective decision making, that could occasionally be compared to aspects of democracy. Here, expert knowledge from repeatable/reliable testing is the gold standard, and opinion or unsupported statements are routinely called out or queried. Wouldn't it be great if presidents had a SINAD, and we had a good idea of what the listening-room was going to be like for the next 4 years...
"Would you ask a group of patients to vote on what the surgeon should do next?"
It raises the point, raised by the OP, of whether democracy is damaged by how informed voters are, and whether they are competent in making correct voting decisions based on their information. Clearly in the context of a medical procedure, you want decisions to be made by highly informed and reasoned professionals. In the context of a democratic vote, forcing an entire population to vote means disregarding their individual levels of salient knowledge, or ability to use their knowledge effectively. Logically you might progress to asking how to screen potential voters as being competent to vote or not, but this is clearly fraught with practical and moral issues. Who makes the test? What are the questions? What knowledge is needed pass and how should voters get it? It soon gets unimaginably complex.
ASR often strikes me as a fascinating microcosm of human collective decision making, that could occasionally be compared to aspects of democracy. Here, expert knowledge from repeatable/reliable testing is the gold standard, and opinion or unsupported statements are routinely called out or queried. Wouldn't it be great if presidents had a SINAD, and we had a good idea of what the listening-room was going to be like for the next 4 years...
Vini darko
Major Contributor
Must...not...post....snarky...comment.
I've often thought about there being requierments for voting beyond age and citizenship. However I always come up with lot's of people who would be excluded unfairly.
I've often thought about there being requierments for voting beyond age and citizenship. However I always come up with lot's of people who would be excluded unfairly.
It is not necessary to force people to vote. Just remove all those obstacles in the US which poeple in other democratic countries can hardly believe, as shown in this video.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2018
- Messages
- 583
- Likes
- 1,191
Filled out a mail-in ballot and took a short walk to drop it in an election ballot drop box a few weeks ago. Received an e-mail confirming my ballot was received. The hardest part was researching the local candidates and issues, including careful reading of the language, newspapers, and consulting with my better half and my kids.
- Joined
- May 21, 2019
- Messages
- 4,036
- Likes
- 6,827
The equivalent of political SINAD is rigorously studied in the academy, but very little of that activity gets heard about in the mainstream media.
Edit: I of course don't mean a single-figure stat, but studies about effectiveness in terms of passing bills or laws, and wider studies about economics and social effects during office. SINAD enough for me.
According to Google trends, which have successfully predicted every election outcome in the past 20 years, the incumbent president is going to win in a landslide. This clearly contradicts all published polls.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...ch-predicts-big-surprise-in-november-election
Do you think this is reliable?
I'm asking because I'm seriously considering placing an hefty bet on the orange ticket (please no politics, just focus on the scientific aspect of this).
Thanks
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...ch-predicts-big-surprise-in-november-election
Do you think this is reliable?
I'm asking because I'm seriously considering placing an hefty bet on the orange ticket (please no politics, just focus on the scientific aspect of this).
Thanks
I hope we can keep this topic open for at least the next 24 hours.
- Joined
- May 21, 2019
- Messages
- 4,036
- Likes
- 6,827
Seems like it depends on the search terms heavily.
This is on the Google Trends homepage for the election: https://trends.google.com/trends/story/US_cu_b4fsy3IBAADxzM_en
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
- Messages
- 2,728
- Likes
- 7,989
Great example. Thank you.
Daily reminder that the only way to properly judge a democratically elected dignitary without implicitely throwing the system away (under the pretense of "it's only democracy when I agree with it" often followed by "my opnion is just common sense/human decency/etc...") is to analyze if he did or tried to do what he promised.
This makes no sense because when I click on "explore" I get a totally different picture. Trump has a very strong lead in search results. Are these average numbers?
OP
L5730
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Thread Starter
- #55
Agreed. Selective voting rights is a difficult topic with many a pit fall.
Owning or borrowing money to buy ones own home can't work in a society where some folks can own multiple properties. It drives up demand, and reduces supply, making it essentially impossible for anyone to afford a home. I guess everyone could just get mortgages they can't afford, go bankrupt and dump the physical houses on the banks account... oh wait, it's not the 2008 crash again is it?
Excluding some folks based on sound of mind would be a topic in itself. Someone suffering from PTSD from military conflict for instance, may understand the politics enough to vote, but may also have a skewed idea of reality (or maybe a clearer idea of reality). Is their vote any more valid or less valid than the next guy who has lived a fairly sheltered life?
@LTig
Watching that video was scary. I saw a video from Abby Martin who showed that a whole swathe of folks were taken off the register because there were other people in another state with a similar name. Crickey, I'd hate to be called John Smith!
Folks, I'd generally refrain from mentioned either of the two US candidates names or showing any poll graphs or whatever. No need to try and influence anyone here. It's also a bit off the main two topics.
Owning or borrowing money to buy ones own home can't work in a society where some folks can own multiple properties. It drives up demand, and reduces supply, making it essentially impossible for anyone to afford a home. I guess everyone could just get mortgages they can't afford, go bankrupt and dump the physical houses on the banks account... oh wait, it's not the 2008 crash again is it?
Excluding some folks based on sound of mind would be a topic in itself. Someone suffering from PTSD from military conflict for instance, may understand the politics enough to vote, but may also have a skewed idea of reality (or maybe a clearer idea of reality). Is their vote any more valid or less valid than the next guy who has lived a fairly sheltered life?
@LTig
Watching that video was scary. I saw a video from Abby Martin who showed that a whole swathe of folks were taken off the register because there were other people in another state with a similar name. Crickey, I'd hate to be called John Smith!
Folks, I'd generally refrain from mentioned either of the two US candidates names or showing any poll graphs or whatever. No need to try and influence anyone here. It's also a bit off the main two topics.
- Joined
- May 21, 2019
- Messages
- 4,036
- Likes
- 6,827
JW001
Member
You mean, without throwing hand grenades?
Nah, at some point someone will lose their temper...
- Joined
- May 21, 2019
- Messages
- 4,036
- Likes
- 6,827
You guys ever hear this story, usually told in stats class?
Long time ago, someone created a public contest for guessing the weight of a cow (or a horse). Individual guesses were way off, but after averaging, the pool of guessing was very close to the actual number.
Another way of saying that skewed views of reality fit right into the current political picture and are no basis for dismissal.
- Joined
- May 21, 2019
- Messages
- 4,036
- Likes
- 6,827
These seem a little circumstantial. Hillary won the popular vote, while Trump won the electoral college in 2016.
I'm sure a deeper analysis would show more substantial results and outliers.
- Status
