Who you going to vote for?

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

I suggested politics wasn't as logical as you made it out to be.
That's different to someone not exercising logic when standing in the poll booth. You can only make so much sense out of chaos.

In this instance you are the theist (All hail the PDs); and I am the agnostic (Are any of these people worthy of my vote?). And we all know agnosticism is the only logical stance.

Well I clarified and said politics was not an exact science and there is some unavoidable subjectivity to it. My claim is that none of reasons given seemed to based on good evidence. For example, legislation passed or policies proposed in manifestos.

Here are three examples:

Finlma wrote:

I wouldn't go near the PDs with a fifty foot barge pole - they can keep their evil right wing agenda well away from me thank you.

the Atheist wrote:

And for feck's sake don't vote for the Greens.

can't remember who said this wrote:

Anyway, I hate the PDs. They're probably a more intelligent party than others, but they're policies are so right wing. They seem to want to create a souless capitalist conformist state. They know how to run an economy well, but they don't seem to care about real people.

Now the level of logic here is very low. Not saying mine is perfect, I am simply saying I would expect a better level of logic from those that can apply logic to a more complicated metaphysical problem.

What I would expect in a logical argument would be a premise based on something more objective and reliable than a perception.

Dades

You have there a series of quotes stating people's preferences.
What you have then done is assumed that none of the posters have any logical reasoning behind such preferences.

Certainly can't remember who said this' quote would lead me to believe that he/she has some reasoned opinion behind the quote, as it's not simply a throwaway comment like the others.

I have my reasons for not voting for the Greens, but I haven't elaborated on them as I have no wish to get into an elongated political debate. The whole business frustrates me.

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

What you have then done is assumed that none of the posters have any logical reasoning behind such preferences.

Yes they could have the best logical reasons in the world for their various choices, and if so I would be really interesting in hearing them.

I was going to vote Green, until I got a link which should how Scientifically iliterate the Green candidate was. In the same way, if I got a good argument not to vote PD and vote someone else, I would love to hear it now. I take my vote seriously that's all.

For example,
I was just looking at planning enforcement policy and compared Labour, PD and FF.
Labour say:

"Refuse planning permission to developers who have failed to finish off housing
developments in the past.
"

PDs say:

"Create a National Planning Monitoring and Enforcement Office in the relevant Department,to police the planning system. This Office would have a mandate to ensure that planning laws are enforced effectively and uniformly across the country. It would also have the power to investigate breaches of the planning law, to seek legal redress against developers and, where appropriate, individuals responsible for breaches of the planning law by development companies. In addition it would compile and publish a “Defaulters Register” of developers or others who had previously not kept to planning conditions agreed with a Local Authority. In relation to new housing developments, the Office would be able to ensure compliance by planning authorities with directives requiring developers to provide social infrastructure(schools, open spaces, recreational facilities etc.) and ensure completion of estates."

Fianna Fail say:
nothing.

so again, I would say PD seemed to have the best thought out policy, Labour mean well but don't go into any detail. I am trying to engage in critical analysis here, I would have thought that was the atheist mind set.

PDN

The Atheist wrote:

My personal feeling about Enda Kenny is that he would crack immediately under torture. In fact he wouldn't even get that far as he'd probably have made a deal with his captors at the expense of his fellow captives.

A difficult theory to prove, I know.

The idea of choosing our political leaders according to how they would react under torture is an intriguing one.

Gerry Adams: "Call yerselves torturers? Yez are a bunch of bleeding amateurs. I'll get ye some real torturers - they haven't gone away ye know!"

The Greens: "Do you realise how much of a carbon footprint was created in generating that electricity that you are applying to my organs?"

Michael McDowell, of course, would escape his torturers by climbing a lamp-post.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well I clarified and said politics was not an exact science and there is some unavoidable subjectivity to it. My claim is that none of reasons given seemed to based on good evidence. For example, legislation passed or policies proposed in manifestos.

Now the level of logic here is very low. Not saying mine is perfect, I am simply saying I would expect a better level of logic from those that can apply logic to a more complicated metaphysical problem.

What I would expect in a logical argument would be a premise based on something more objective and reliable than a perception.

Hmm. The problem there would be that there's no easy summary of "legislation passed" - and even if that is made available, there's no way of guessing the horse-trading behind it.

Similarly, the problem with going by manifestos is that a two-part judgement is required - what the manifesto says, and whether they mean it.

Then, there is a balance between voting for the party and voting locally. One might consider candidate X, of party X, to be superior to candidate Y of party Y, even though one prefers party Y at the national level.

Finally, there is the question of whether one is choosing a candidate who is aligned with one's preferences whether or not they will they have a hope of being elected, or trying to choose the candidate closest to your preferences who also stands a good chance of being elected.

So, at the end of the day, who you vote for is not a 'mechanical' process amenable entirely to logical analysis, but rather an intricate process of judging characters and weighing multiple factors.

Personally, I vote Green, because as a junior partner in Government I think they will be forced to fight to produce some environmentally positive policies to stand any chance of re-election - and I think most of them are intelligent, honest, and open-eared enough to ensure that such policies are genuinely positive.

44-46in chest on the sweater, thanks, and long to match if you're knitting them yourself...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

44-46in chest on the sweater, thanks, and long to match if you're knitting them yourself...

I'll just check the stock in the back of my Toyota Pius...

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. The problem there would be that there's no easy summary of "legislation passed" - and even if that is made available, there's no way of guessing the horse-trading behind it.

Similarly, the problem with going by manifestos is that a two-part judgement is required - what the manifesto says, and whether they mean it.

Then, there is a balance between voting for the party and voting locally. One might consider candidate X, of party X, to be superior to candidate Y of party Y, even though one prefers party Y at the national level.

Finally, there is the question of whether one is choosing a candidate who is aligned with one's preferences whether or not they will they have a hope of being elected, or trying to choose the candidate closest to your preferences who also stands a good chance of being elected.

So, at the end of the day, who you vote for is not a 'mechanical' process amenable entirely to logical analysis, but rather an intricate process of judging characters and weighing multiple factors.

Personally, I vote Green, because as a junior partner in Government I think they will be forced to fight to produce some environmentally positive policies to stand any chance of re-election - and I think most of them are intelligent, honest, and open-eared enough to ensure that such policies are genuinely positive.

44-46in chest on the sweater, thanks, and long to match if you're knitting them yourself...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw as someone who is passionate about Science do the psuedo science claims of the Green not worry you?

My heart says vote Green, but my head say no.
I am voting PD mainly as a vote for Mary Harney for health minister. I have followed that issue closely and I think she has made a lot of progress in the last two years and has a good plan for freeing up public beds for public patients. (I could elaborate but I think I have had more than my fair share in this thread.)
After that I am voting for local reasons.

The other parties have no plan and I think it will only be regressive step.
Now how much of vote is logic is there and how much is based on perception is subjective. I agree.
I also agree there's a massive element of subjectivity and perception in voting, I still think there is some room for reason and logic, I just would have thought there would be more from the A&A gang. But of course how much or how little there is itself subjective.

Mods - feel free to lock this thread as it is election day. Up to you people.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Scofflaw as someone who is passionate about Science do the psuedo science claims of the Green not worry you?

That depends on what you mean.

McKenna's ridiculous claims about the MMR? Various people's kneejerk silliness about GM crops? The automatic/doctrinal rejection of nuclear power?

The former is, I think, a personal piece of stupidity - which I don't expect to see reflected in policy. The others are matched by every other party.

The Greens often look more pseudo-scientific than other parties, but that's because they're talking more about issues where science makes a difference. I don't think any of the other parties are any more understanding of science - it just doesn't show up so much because they aren't even talking about those issues.

Tim Robbins wrote:

My heart says vote Green, but my head say no.
I am voting PD mainly as a vote for Mary Harney for health minister. I have followed that issue closely and I think she has made a lot of progress in the last two years and has a good plan for freeing up public beds for public patients. (I could elaborate but I think I have had more than my fair share in this thread.)

Ah, well, Mary Harney I would vote for if she claimed to belong to the Muppet Jihad Party - she's an extremely competent and effective politician, going on her track record. Instead, I've got McDowell, who I absolutely won't be voting for, going on his.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Mods - feel free to lock this thread as it is election day. Up to you people.

Oh, we're allowed to talk all we like - it's the meeja who have to stay quiet.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

That depends on what you mean.
McKenna's ridiculous claims about the MMR? Various people's kneejerk silliness about GM crops? The automatic/doctrinal rejection of nuclear power?

I am just talking about general policies.
Here's another one:
www.nualaahern.com/medicine.htm

Ah, well, Mary Harney I would vote for if she claimed to belong to the Muppet Jihad Party - she's an extremely competent and effective politician, going on her track record. Instead, I've got McDowell, who I absolutely won't be voting for, going on his.

I think McDowell has annoyed a lot of people, no doubt. I like his Cafe Bar bill, and his idea of getting non Irish nationals into the Gardai. His PR skills are about as bad as my typos. That said, I think any Labour, FG big name could do just as good a job at Minister for Justice.
I don't see anything that McDowell has done, that no FG / Labour senior politician could not do, except slag off SF on national television, which I will admit I find hillarious.

It's Harney loosing health I am really worried about. All the progress she has made will be wiped out and we will have to go right back to square one. She is the only politician able to negotiate with the consultants, a clever well organised bunch of folk all on 225K a year who just don't want to reform.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

I am just talking about general policies.
Here's another one:
www.nualaahern.com/medicine.htm

Hmm. Those aren't policies - they are bees in the bonnet of particular reps which are unlikely to mean anything in government.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think McDowell has annoyed a lot of people, no doubt. I like his Cafe Bar bill, and his idea of getting non Irish nationals into the Gardai. His PR skills are about as bad as my typos. That said, I think any Labour, FG big name could do just as good a job at Minister for Justice.
I don't see anything that McDowell has done, that no FG / Labour senior politician could not do, except slag off SF on national television, which I will admit I find hillarious.

In addition, his instincts are anti-democratic and authoritarian. He has introduced a lot of legislation that reduces rights and privacy. He regularly truncates debates in the Dáil, a body for which he appears to have no great respect.

Tim Robbins wrote:

It's Harney loosing health I am really worried about. All the progress she has made will be wiped out and we will have to go right back to square one. She is the only politician able to negotiate with the consultants, a clever well organised bunch of folk all on 225K a year who just don't want to reform.

Tend to agree, but please please please the word is "losing".

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

Tim Robbins wrote:

It's Harney loosing health I am really worried about. All the progress she has made will be wiped out and we will have to go right back to square one. She is the only politician able to negotiate with the consultants, a clever well organised bunch of folk all on 225K a year who just don't want to reform.

Sorry to have a go but it's one of my pet peeves ....

Firstly when elections come round 'health' is a big issue! Yet for 5 years we (as in the general public) drink, smoke, drive too fast, take little exercise and in general make poor lifestyle choices and suddenly come an election 'health' is a number one priority? come off it.

Ask a member of the health service what percentage of the health budget is spent remedying poor health and lifestyle choices, drop into your local A&E after 9PM and look at how much of our money we're spending dealing directly and indirectly on the consequences of binge drinking.

And Harney? Minister of Health? come off it, if there's a walking advert for all that is wrong with the way we live our lives and then try to spend money on the health service to make it all better then she's it. Clinically obese and a smoker, whatever happened to politicians leading by example?

Dades

I broke my ankle last month, and went straight to the A&E.

I was x-rayed and in a cast within twenty minutes. One of the top sports-injury surgeons operated on me the next day, and I was home the day after that.

I paid €60 for that complete service, so I ain't complaining about the health service.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

In addition, his instincts are anti-democratic and authoritarian. He has introduced a lot of legislation that reduces rights and privacy. He regularly truncates debates in the Dáil, a body for which he appears to have no great respect.

Can you provide specific examples of the above?

Tim Robbins

pH wrote:

And Harney? Minister of Health? come off it, if there's a walking advert for all that is wrong with the way we live our lives and then try to spend money on the health service to make it all better then she's it. Clinically obese and a smoker, whatever happened to politicians leading by example?

Sounds like you want Sonia O'Sullivan to replace her.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Can you provide specific examples of the above?

Increases in CCTV, draconian Data Retention Act, weakening of the FoI Acts, five-year jail terms for whistleblowers in the Gardai...

...as to the debate truncations, it's all over the Dáil debates.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

Greens.

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

I broke my ankle last month, and went straight to the A&E.

I was x-rayed and in a cast within twenty minutes. One of the top sports-injury surgeons operated on me the next day, and I was home the day after that.

I paid €60 for that complete service, so I ain't complaining about the health service.

Which A&E?

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Increases in CCTV, draconian Data Retention Act, weakening of the FoI Acts, five-year jail terms for whistleblowers in the Gardai...

...as to the debate truncations, it's all over the Dáil debates.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Good points. I can't think of any counter arguments, my intuition tells me even if I spent an hour googling, I don't think there are any good counter arguments. Does anybody else have any?

I think a labour candidate would do a better job at Minister for Justice.

Dades

Wicknight wrote:

Which A&E?

St. Vincent's. Was only 10mins away.
I can't and won't say every A&E is that good but I can only say my own experience was top class.