Geniocracy Party (proposal)

[Hairyloon]

Because the policies wouldn't be ones they like.

Then they can argue against them and try to persuade their MP.

That is the fundamental difference between this party and the rest. All we can do now is write as an individual and get an individual brush off: even if it is done en masse, it does not progress the discussion any.

Another example, in a referendum >50% of people voted against a change from first past the post, which is pretty clearly a terribly unrepresentative way for MPs to be selected. AVP wasn't perfect, but it was better, for ideological reasons people rejected it.

>50% of people?! Come now, I expect better of you: it was a particularly low turn out as I recall, and I don't think we can extrapolate any guesses about why people voted that way.

However, if the MP's had been paying attention to the discussions they would have known that the vote was on the wrong question...

[Cyclone]

They can't make rational arguments against them, because fundamentally they aren't wishing a policy driven by evidence or rationale.

When you want policies that aren't logically supported, you won't vote for a party that only enacts logical, rational policies.

 

The referendum on the alternative vote? Why was it the wrong question?

 

On a turnout of 42.2 per cent, 68 per cent voted "No" and 32 per cent voted "Yes".

 

Nearly 70% voted against reform, despite the obvious flaws and iniquities of the current system.

[Hairyloon]

They can't make rational arguments against them, because fundamentally they aren't wishing a policy driven by evidence or rationale.

When you want policies that aren't logically supported, you won't vote for a party that only enacts logical, rational policies.

Doesn't that argument presuppose that the voter recognises that their arguments are irrational?

 

The referendum on the alternative vote? Why was it the wrong question?

 

Because hardly anybody wants AV. Most reformists want PR or some variant thereof: opinion was divided over whether any change was better than no change, or if we got change then they'd never give us another change.

[Cyclone]

You can see how people on the forum react when an ideological opinion is refuted logically.

[Hairyloon]

On a turnout of 42.2 per cent, 68 per cent voted "No" and 32 per cent voted "Yes".

28.6% of the electorate, about 20% of people.

[Cyclone]

28.6% of the electorate, about 20% of people.

 

I'm not sure what point you're making, we often have governments who were voted for by similar overall %s.

[Hairyloon]

You can see how people on the forum react when an ideological opinion is refuted logically.

 

Mostly they keep on arguing...

 

Or do you mean that they tend to get abusive and personal?

That is potentially a problem: how do you curb abusive posters without restricting free speech?

I suggest to have separate areas of the discussion board to which abusive people are relegated until they learn to behave better.

Edited May 10, 2017 by Hairyloon

[barleycorn]

The main problem is that people only want rational, eveidence based, policies if they happent to coincide with their own preconceived ideas. If they don't then the policy is obviously wrong or ill founded.

[Cyclone]

The main problem is that people only want rational, eveidence based, policies if they happent to coincide with their own preconceived ideas. If they don't then the policy is obviously wrong or ill founded.

 

This is what I'm trying to drive at.

[barleycorn]

It was such a good point I thought it needed making twice.