I'm informed about not being informed.

Like this. So even if the smartest, most informed people in the nation go to vote, their vote doesn't matter. They don't have sufficient votes. In the end it's still the below average that decides. — Agustino

You are assuming that the "below average" (unenlightened's stupid, the ignorant and the irrational) would somehow vote differently than the "average" or "above average". How well people perceive their own interests is quite possibly only weakly correlated with intelligence.

Those who fear the changes that vigorous response to global warming might bring (no more coal mining, for instance, no more dirty industries of which there are many) and in which their jobs are located are likely to vote for a candidate who does not promise a vigorous response -- or better, no response at all. The same thinking might apply to very wealthy people who own dirty industries -- coal, oil, chemicals, etc. Their wealth, instead of their jobs, might be very negatively affected by a vigorous global warming effort.

It is also possible that there are dull air heads and not terribly thoughtful people who vote for candidates in favor of strong responses to global warming because they entertain fantasies about a purified, fresh new world free of the smell of asphalt.

Only in the long run does global warming matter, and as John Maynard Keynes observed, "In the long run we are all dead". No one -- smart, stupid, or indifferent -- is good at long range planning and implementation. Wise people understand that there is such a thing as long-term consequences, but even wise people can not figure out how to implement consistent policy over 100 years time.

Trump's walking away from the Paris Agreement is not an example of stupidity; it's an example of reprehensible, counter-productive policy. Trump is choosing to appeal to his base, and to fuck over the longer term interests of the American People, and the world's people.

fascist











:P

Isn't this a clear case of political evangelism? — Agustino

Nah. It's clearly more about strategy than the need to convince others of a belief.

Baden needs to read a dictionary. — Michael

Actually, I stand corrected. — Michael

>:)

My vote would only be relevant if the Conservatives end up winning by 1 vote. ;)
17 hours ago

Yes that might be accurate mathematically but on the ground, it's more of a group activity. For example a politician might say something at the last minute (which might be irrelevant to the political situation) which weirdly results in lots of voters deciding that their vote is a wasted vote and then not going out to vote. Also you don't know what other voters are thinking, as a group they might be swaying this way and that, like the weather. If you don't vote the pool of voters is reduced which if reduced beyond a certain point might result in a revolution and a dictator installed. Also you might say something in the pub which sways a group of people to vote differently. Indeed in this thread you might have changed the political weather already.

Here's some more evangelism for ya...

General tactical voting information: http://uk.businessinsider.com/tactical-voting-guide-how-to-vote-tactically-2017-general-election-by-constituency-2017-4

The most useful guide on the web for tactical voting in your area: https://www.tactical2017.com/

Ah, but I'm below average, so in deciding not to vote, I've made it better. — Michael

I'm not convinced. :(

I'll put it somewhat differently. Those who don't vote will tend to be middle of the road politically; extremists always vote. Therefore, voter apathy tends to lead to extremism and instability.

Obama won my state because of volunteers who drove lazy apathetic people to the polls. It requires a fair amount of effort and organization though... little to no philosophy is required.

At our backs stand a lot of generations of people who put in many shifts of hard work and protest so that any old person could vote. The apathetic get the government they deserve.

I'm intrigued by the earlier implication that smart, well-informed people vote the right way. Part of the joy of democracy is the possibility that they are wrong.

https://www.tactical2017.com/

Come on we can't let the haunted art gallery owner and her band of unmerry men win..

I think the Conservatives have this election in the bag pretty much, once again. But Labour will be close percentage wise.

Vote Labour today!

I'm hoping for a hung parliament.

When is the result?

What, hung like a pony or a horse?

I read that Corbyn has never voted for an anti-terrorism bill. True? False? If true, why?

I read that Corbyn has never voted for an anti-terrorism bill. True? False? If true, why? — Bitter Crank

False. He has voted for that kind of thing, and he cited an example in his answer to this question. As he has explained, he did vote against some such particular bill or bills, as did other prominent members of parliament at the time, such as David Davis, but this was not because he was against antiterrorism legislation, but because of problems inherent within that particular legislation which were to do with judicial oversight.

Glad it was false.

I'd be very careful not to equate voting against an 'anti-terrorist bill' with not being 'anti-terrorist'.

That something gets called an 'anti-terrorist' bill tells us only that its promoters have been successful in convincing people that the measures contained in the bill will reduce terrorism. It tells us nothing about whether it is actually likely to do that.

Many of the measures that have been portrayed by Western governments since 2001 as 'anti-terrorist' will have had the exact opposite effect - ie they will have created conditions for increased terrorism. The classic example of that is the invasion of Iraq.

My starting point for evaluation of somebody who has 'never voted for an anti-terrorist bill' would be to observe that they must have tremendous political courage, which is a good thing. Of course I would then want to know the details of the bills that were voted against, but that's another matter.

So what's going on now? Is it not hung parliament anymore?

Yeah, but the DUP have agreed to vote with the Tories in exchange for the Tories voting with them.

So the Tories have made an extreme right turn, in exchange for power?