The people of Ireland have spoken.

FionnMatthew

In fact, I'll add to that. Boards.ie refutes you, since I'm sure many of the people who were here over the run up to the election will testify to the fact that this forum was one of the best places to come for informed, educated and substantive dialectical on the Lisbon Treaty.

The people who hold Boards a passion here threw themselves furiously into dialectic, spending every spare hour engaged in heated discussion. It was the exemplar of a digital agora. By and large, everyone who came here learned something, and it is an example of how everyone should conduct themselves with respect to public discourse, if not on the net, then in public.

auerillo

FionnMatthew wrote: »

I'm not sure peddling aphorisms about the "once true sacrosanctity" of democracy helps anyone. .

While I agree entirely with you on that, it is also an interesting point to note that, as in Nice, if one doesn’t agree with the result of a ballot, one no longer has to accept it. It seems fine to just find a reason why the poll was not legitimate (either the electorate were too stupid or they believed the “lies” of the other side etc etc).

Think about that. Because the vote didn’t go the way those in power wanted it to go, then they will find a pretext to run it again and try to get us, with a mixture of stick and carrot, to vote the correct way next time. It’s not exactly the same thing as being sent for “re-education” under the old Soviet system, but it’s a step in that direction.

And that’s what I mean by democracy not being sacrosanct, that a vote which is not the vote the government wanted is seen as a temporary inconvenience rather than the will of the people.

As has been said before, democracy used to work on the basis that our TD’s represented the views of their constituents. This has been turned almost 180° on its head and the role now, it seems, of our TD’s is to represent the views of the government, both national and supranational, to their constituents. IN turn, the role of the government is to agree with what the EU politicians and bureaucrats want, and “manipulate” their own national situation to accommodate that.

Thus it’s orchestrated that France and Holland no longer have referenda as they would probably have voted “no” again. The UK would certainly not be allowed a referenda, again because the outcome would be assumed to be “no”, and we, who have voted the wrong way, will be required to vote again and next time we will be told we are not morally really able to vote "no" as the rest of the EU states have all voted yes. Only they haven't, but that's the way politics works. The politicians now feel it is their duty to manipulate us to do what they want, and will use all manner of threats and cajoling and manipulation to achieve that.

There seems to be an underlying message that it’s ok to compromise democracy in what is assumed to be the greater good of the progress of the EU. That’s the point I can’t agree with as I think its obvious we compromise democracy at our own peril.

oscarBravo

auerillo, is there a particular reason you're ignoring my posts?

I only ask because it's a behaviour that's awfully familiar, as is your writing style.

Now, far be it from me to accuse you of a site-bannable offence like re-registering to evade a ban, but if it walks like a duck...

auerillo

oscarBravo wrote: »

marco_polo, don't accuse people of trolling. thehighground, engage in the discussion or stay out of it.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Democracy means (simplistically) "rule by the people". Ruling is a responsibility that should be taken seriously.

If a monarch ruled capriciously, making decrees for or against anything on whatever criteria he wanted to use, he'd be castigated as a despot, and rightly so. If "the people" in a democracy are equally capricious in their decisions about how to rule, they deserve equal criticism.

oscarBravo wrote: »

auerillo, is there a particular reason you're ignoring my posts?

I only ask because it's a behaviour that's awfully familiar, as is your writing style.

Now, far be it from me to accuse you of a site-bannable offence like re-registering to evade a ban, but if it walks like a duck...

Those are the last three posts I can see here and I’m sorry if you think I am ignoring you. I didn’t think the first post was really intended to generate a response or discussion, the second post seems to be self explanatory and also doesn’t seem to require a response, and this is a response to your last post. I’ve gone back to the 14th June here and can’t see any other posts from you.

I’m happy to discuss and if you can direct me to the post you have in mind, I’ll happily try to respond if I am able.

oscarBravo

auerillo wrote: »

I’m happy to discuss and if you can direct me to the post you have in mind, I’ll happily try to respond if I am able.

If you don't consider posts you disagree with as requiring a response, then you have a different concept of "happy to discuss" from me.

FionnMatthew

auerillo wrote: »

While I agree entirely with you on that, it is also an interesting point to note that, as in Nice, if one doesn’t agree with the result of a ballot, one no longer has to accept it. It seems fine to just find a reason why the poll was not legitimate (either the electorate were too stupid or they believed the “lies” of the other side etc etc).

Think about that. Because the vote didn’t go the way those in power wanted it to go, then they will find a pretext to run it again and try to get us, with a mixture of stick and carrot, to vote the correct way next time. It’s not exactly the same thing as being sent for “re-education” under the old Soviet system, but it’s a step in that direction.

And that’s what I mean by democracy not being sacrosanct, that a vote which is not the vote the government wanted is seen as a temporary inconvenience rather than the will of the people.

As has been said before, democracy used to work on the basis that our TD’s represented the views of their constituents. This has been turned almost 180° on its head and the role now, it seems, of our TD’s is to represent the views of the government, both national and supranational, to their constituents. IN turn, the role of the government is to agree with what the EU politicians and bureaucrats want, and “manipulate” their own national situation to accommodate that.

Thus it’s orchestrated that France and Holland no longer have referenda as they would probably have voted “no” again. The UK would certainly not be allowed a referenda, again because the outcome would be assumed to be “no”, and we, who have voted the wrong way, will be required to vote again and next time we will be told we are not morally really able to vote "no" as the rest of the EU states have all voted yes. Only they haven't, but that's the way politics works. The politicians now feel it is their duty to manipulate us to do what they want, and will use all manner of threats and cajoling and manipulation to achieve that.

There seems to be an underlying message that it’s ok to compromise democracy in what is assumed to be the greater good of the progress of the EU. That’s the point I can’t agree with as I think its obvious we compromise democracy at our own peril.

I think your analysis here is sound. I also think you're correct about your conclusion in the last sentence. The last thing that should be done is the circumscription of the will of the demos.

But, at the same time, what do you think of the diagnosis of this elitist distaste for electoral volition as just one symptom of a malaise on Western democracy, another symptom of which is the continued dumbing down of the civic reality of democracy, so that the electorate has no intellectual tools to produce a general will worthy of governmental respect?

auerillo

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you don't consider posts you disagree with as requiring a response, then you have a different concept of "happy to discuss" from me.

If you can point me to the post or posts which you want me to respond to, I’ll be happy to try to respond. Do you have a specific post or posts in mind?

FionnMatthew wrote: »

I think your analysis here is sound. I also think you're correct about your conclusion in the last sentence. The last thing that should be done is the circumscription of the will of the demos.

But, at the same time, what do you think of the diagnosis of this elitist distaste for electoral volition as just one symptom of a malaise on Western democracy, another symptom of which is the continued dumbing down of the civic reality of democracy, so that the electorate has no intellectual tools to produce a general will worthy of governmental respect?

I think all we have is our democracy, and we are in danger of sleep walking into giving up bits of it without realising what we are doing. Interestingly, our constitution prevents us from doing that without a majority of citizens specifically agreeing to the specific proposals to do that.

Sovereignty rests with us, as citizens. And we, as sovereign citizens, vote in a government every few years, in whom we temporarily vest this power. No government has the power, or the authority, to give any or all of those powers to another institution, as the powers are only temporarily theirs, to use in accordance with the consent of the people.

I do think that there is a malaise in western democracy, or at least complacency. Much of it is to do with the rise of the career politician, whose focus is on re-election and climbing the greasy pole, rather than implementing good policy, showing an independence of mind and representing his constituents. To keep his seat and climb the greasy pole, his priority is to show loyalty to the leader of the party (rather than to his constituents), which in turn gives the leader of the party (particularly if they are in government) a huge rise in personal power.

This is probably a discussion for another thread, but I do think that the rise of the career politician has impoverished our Dail and is at the root of complacency towards the political process.

oscarBravo

auerillo wrote: »

If you can point me to the post or posts which you want me to respond to, I’ll be happy to try to respond. Do you have a specific post or posts in mind?

Considering you talk a lot about democracy, you could start with the post where I pointed out that your vision of democracy is deeply flawed.

On a more general note, I was bringing your attention to the fact that you remind me a lot of someone that I had to ban from this forum under four separate guises for a similar soapboxing style.

Rb

Bambi wrote: »

The truth is that the NO campaign comes out of this pretty well set up. If the EU abides by it's own rule that lisbon must be passed unanimously then lisbon is dead. If they continue push the treaty then it just proves what the No side claimed about the EU becoming a law unto itself.

Indeed. It's quite sickening really. The same people who are trying to convince us they're based in democratic fundamentals are now trying to pressure every other country to rafity this treaty in an attempt to bully our country, they're sending Sarkozy (ughhh) over on the 11th to try and pressure the Government into calling another election on (what I presume to be) the same document etc.

The article quoted by Snow Scorpian is dead right.

This whole debacle has started to turn me from pro-EU (whilst anti-Lisbon) to anti-EU altogether. I don't really see why France wants more power anyway, when it comes down to it, all they're really good at is surrendering

auerillo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Considering you talk a lot about democracy, you could start with the post where I pointed out that your vision of democracy is deeply flawed.

On a more general note, I was bringing your attention to the fact that you remind me a lot of someone that I had to ban from this forum under four separate guises for a similar soap boxing style.

For me, democracy is the will of the people.

There seem to be those who, quite genuinely, seem to define democracy as the will of the political classes.

One of the effects of the Lisbon treaty has been to bring this sharply into focus and let’s hope we can strengthen our democracy as a result.

I’m not sure what you mean when you talk about my “soap boxing style”. I’m trying to have an interesting and illuminating discussion and if you have an example of where I have “soap boxed” I’d be delighted to have it drawn to my attention so as to try to avoid breaking the rules in future. (If you want to do that in a pvt message rather than take up space in the discussion, I’ll happily take it on board).

Rb wrote: »

Indeed. It's quite sickening really. The same people who are trying to convince us they're based in democratic fundamentals are now trying to pressure every other country to rafity this treaty in an attempt to bully our country, they're sending Sarkozy (ughhh) over on the 11th to try and pressure the Government into calling another election on (what I presume to be) the same document etc.

The article quoted by Snow Scorpian is dead right.

This whole debacle has started to turn me from pro-EU (whilst anti-Lisbon) to anti-EU altogether. I don't really see why France wants more power anyway, when it comes down to it, all they're really good at is surrendering

I agree that we seem to be living in a topsy turvey world, where some involved in the debate talk in what Orwell, I think, called "newspeak", where we mean the exact opposite of what we say. Thus Gay Mitchell is arguing that, in order to make the EU more democratic, we should not allow any of its citizens the right, in future, to vote on issues relating to it. What is it about the EU that makes otherwise sane and rational people turn logic on its head?

My belief is that, if the EU is to succeed in whatever its long term objectives are (we are assured it’s not a federal superstate, but no one seems to be able to say where the EU is quite heading), then it can only do so with the consent of its citizens. Consent of its politicians is not enough and if the EU tries to force its views on the citizens, against the wishes of the citizens, then that path spells trouble.

There is a feeling with some across the EU that, by a series of small steps, largely unobjectionable on their own, the EU is progressing in a direction which its leaders want to take it, but which it suspects will not get the consent of the citizens. Some people are uneasy about this.

What makes them even more uneasy is that they are being told they are out of step with everyone else (like the Irish are told about their “no” vote to the Lisbon treaty), when, patently, this is not the case.

There is a feeling that, in the EU, democracy is defined as doing as we are told by the politicians and, certainly, Gay Mitchells Orwellian calls for “more democracy” ( ie. not allowing the citizens a vote in future) do nothing to dispel these fears.

SimpleSam06

auerillo wrote: »

Consent of its politicians is not enough and if the EU tries to force its views on the citizens, against the wishes of the citizens, then that path spells trouble.

There is a feeling with some across the EU that, by a series of small steps, largely unobjectionable on their own, the EU is progressing in a direction which its leaders want to take it, but which it suspects will not get the consent of the citizens. Some people are uneasy about this.

Bravo and well said sir.

I include myself in the number of those growing increasingly uneasy about the direction the EU is taking, and I would warrant that not to indicate any malaise in western democracy but what appears to be deliberate obfuscation of legislation and an attempt by the EU to sidestep the rules laid down by the EU. This does not rouse confidence in their assurances about the direction Europe is taking, nor in assurances that "it will be up to each member state to ratify certain objectionable elements".

Who is doing the ratifying?

oscarBravo

auerillo wrote: »

My belief is that, if the EU is to succeed in whatever its long term objectives are (we are assured it’s not a federal superstate, but no one seems to be able to say where the EU is quite heading), then it can only do so with the consent of its citizens. Consent of its politicians is not enough and if the EU tries to force its views on the citizens, against the wishes of the citizens, then that path spells trouble.

As always, the key point that is being missed (or dodged) here is that the EU is not composed of citizens, but of member states. EU citizens are only such by virtue of their citizenship of a member state. The EU doesn't do things with the consent of its citizens (nor should it - because to do so most assuredly would make it a federal superstate), but with the consent of its members, which are states.

To draw an analogy: IBEC is an organisation whose members are businesses. It takes action based on the wishes of its member businesses, not their shareholders. I haven't heard anyone suggest that IBEC should canvass all its members' shareholders for their opinions.

If a business's shareholders feel strongly about an IBEC policy, they can mandate that business to raise the issue with IBEC.

There is a feeling with some across the EU that, by a series of small steps, largely unobjectionable on their own, the EU is progressing in a direction which its leaders want to take it, but which it suspects will not get the consent of the citizens. Some people are uneasy about this.

What makes them even more uneasy is that they are being told they are out of step with everyone else (like the Irish are told about their “no” vote to the Lisbon treaty), when, patently, this is not the case.

This is an exercise in sophistry. Who are "some people", and who is "everybody else" in this context? You're inventing arguments to disagree with. Leave the straw men out of it.

There is a feeling that, in the EU, democracy is defined as doing as we are told by the politicians and, certainly, Gay Mitchells Orwellian calls for “more democracy” ( ie. not allowing the citizens a vote in future) do nothing to dispel these fears.

The EU consists of its members, and those members define its future (as they have defined its entire existence to date). Those members are countries, represented by their governments.

The "EU democracy" you have a problem with does not exist. For it to exist, the EU would have to become the very superstate you are decrying. Your arguments, although very cleverly presented, are internally inconsistent and amount to little more than sophistry.

oscarBravo

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Who is doing the ratifying?

The member states. Who else?

SimpleSam06

oscarBravo wrote: »

The member states. Who else?

The member states represented, at the end of the day, by career politicians, yes? Where difficulty seems to be arising is in the feeling that there is a divergence of purpose between the measures being enacted by elected representatives, and the wishes of those who elected them.

Of course this works under the assumption that politicians do not pursue their careers for altruistic reasons, astonishing as it may be. I have to say, Mr. Sarkozy doubling his own salary last year has certainly shaken my faith in their motives. Heh.

auerillo

oscarBravo wrote: »

… the EU is not composed of citizens, but of member states. EU citizens are only such by virtue of their citizenship of a member state. The EU doesn't do things with the consent of its citizens (nor should it - because to do so most assuredly would make it a federal superstate), but with the consent of its members, which are states.

To say “the EU doesn’t do things without the consent of its citizens (nor should it…)” seems an unusual claim to make, especially in light that only 4 out or 500 million of its citizens were allowed to vote on, for example, the Lisbon treaty.

Although distinct from Irish legislation, EC laws become part of Irish law by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972. EC law also takes precedence over existing Irish law, which must be amended if it is found to conflict with EC law. To say that the EU is merely a collection of states forgets that most of our law, through statutory instruments which originate in Brussels, bypass our Dáil completely.

The fact is that is is now the EU, and not our Dáil, who makes the majority of our laws. You may well decide that the people who make the majority of our laws should not be called a super state, or should not be called a government, but what else does one call a body who makes laws which are legally binding on us?

To be more specific, in 2002 the Commission produced 44 directives, 602 regulations and 610 decisions while the Council produced 149 directives, 164 regulations and 57 decisions. That makes a total of 193 directives, 766 regulations and 667 decisions. That is a grand total of 1,626 pieces of legislation. In 2006 this total was 3,255 pieces of legislation which originated in Brussels and which our Dáil is powerless to change, alter or refuse to implement. That's almost 10 per day. The German Federal Department of Justice has estimated that 80 per cent of German laws or regulations, since 1998, were statutory instruments from the EU.

To imply that the EU is merely a collection of states with no legislative powers simply flies in the face of the facts. More especially so when one realises that our Dáil no longer has any say in the majority of laws whice we now implement. It is the same for every other government in the 26 member states of the EU.

Ask the fishermen of Ireland whether or not the EU does things without their consent, or the farmers, or the people who have cut turf for generations. I am not arguing whether what the EU has done for these groups is good or bad, but what they have done is certainly without their consent.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I include myself in the number of those growing increasingly uneasy about the direction the EU is taking, and I would warrant that not to indicate any malaise in western democracy but what appears to be deliberate obfuscation of legislation and an attempt by the EU to sidestep the rules laid down by the EU. This does not rouse confidence in their assurances about the direction Europe is taking, nor in assurances that "it will be up to each member state to ratify certain objectionable elements".

Well said, and I agree that more and more people are becoming uneasy with both the direction or the EU and that democracy is being compromised to get there.

Irish and Proud

oscarBravo wrote: »

auerillo, is there a particular reason you're ignoring my posts?

I only ask because it's a behaviour that's awfully familiar, as is your writing style.

Now, far be it from me to accuse you of a site-bannable offence like re-registering to evade a ban, but if it walks like a duck...

Well, I haven't read your post yet, but auerillo's argument (27/06/2008 @ 9:52) stands pretty firm on its own two feet IMO. What it states is exactly what seems to be happening within EU circles at the moment. It is quite obvious that the political systems across the EU do not represent the people (IMO). I for sure will be voting NO to Lisbon 2, and 3...

Regards!

Irish and Proud

oscarBravo wrote: »

Democracy means (simplistically) "rule by the people". Ruling is a responsibility that should be taken seriously.

...so will our politicians please take ruling seriously and serve the people they are supposed to represent. At the moment, it seems that Brian Cowen & Co want to be lap dogs for both Sarkozy and Borosso, while disregarding our wishes. It also seems that Enda Kenny & Co just want FF out in order to seize power - they couldn't give a damn about the country or its people - we badly need a new opposition party that can effectively oppose on the basis of policy, not power seeking.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If a monarch ruled capriciously, making decrees for or against anything on whatever criteria he wanted to use, he'd be castigated as a despot, and rightly so. If "the people" in a democracy are equally capricious in their decisions about how to rule, they deserve equal criticism.

...only if core principles such as human or civil rights are being breached! Now, what did the Irish people do wrong in voting No???

Regards!

is_that_so

Irish and Proud wrote: »

...only if core principles such as human or civil rights are being breached! Now, what did the Irish people do wrong in voting No???

Regards!

If that's what you voted for then I respect your decision and anyone who made choice based on such principles or an attempted understanding of the core issues whatever way that vote was cast.

However if you voted yes for the country, for the party , to avoid embarrassment your vote is dishonest and poorly cast. If you voted no because you didn't understand it, the EU was "bullying" you, you expected renegotiation, you thought Coir had nice posters, EU conscription, you hate the government or you saw it as "your right to vote no", your vote is also dishonest and poorly cast.

Both in my view are utterly capricious, lazy and I would even suggest anti-democratic, in the sense that people did not bother to inform themselves in any way and therefore did not adequately participate in the democratic instrument on offer. IMO it highlights the questionable use of referenda , especially in something so complex. As I've commented elsewhere we've had four attempts at abortion but yet it's still lying there in the long grass and that was just a simple single-issue question.

SkepticOne

I think it is worth reminding ourselves that when it comes to voting there's no right or wrong reason. The system goes to some length to make the distinction between rational or capricious voting meaningless. At the end of the day one person's vote carries the same weight as another's. "Capricious" votes are counted the same as any other.

It has taken society a long time to arrive at this stage and it is not going to change simply because some people feel some other people did not vote for the (in their view) "correct" reasons.

With rights come responsibilities but these responsibilities cannot negate the right of a free vote.

oscarBravo

auerillo wrote: »

To say “the EU doesn’t do things without the consent of its citizens (nor should it…)” seems an unusual claim to make, especially in light that only 4 out or 500 million of its citizens were allowed to vote on, for example, the Lisbon treaty.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't deliberately misquote me there (although you must have worked hard at missing my point, considering the rest of my post which you conveniently ignored). Please respond to what I actually wrote, then we'll have something to discuss.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your diatribe, because it was a response to a selective misquote from me, and ignored the bulk of what I had to say.

oscarBravo

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think it is worth reminding ourselves that when it comes to voting there's no right or wrong reason. The system goes to some length to make the distinction between rational or capricious voting meaningless. At the end of the day one person's vote carries the same weight as another's. "Capricious" votes are counted the same as any other.

It has taken society a long time to arrive at this stage and it is not going to change simply because some people feel some other people did not vote for the (in their view) "correct" reasons.

With rights come responsibilities but these responsibilities cannot negate the right of a free vote.

You're going to wear that straw man out if you're not careful.

The suggestion that someone should actually think carefully about their decision before casting a ballot is in no way incompatible with a free and secret ballot.

As for there being no right or wrong reason for voting a particular way: if I had tossed a coin in order to decide on which way to vote in June's referendum, do you really think that "because it came up heads" would have been a good reason for a "yes" vote?

SkepticOne

oscarBravo wrote: »

As for there being no right or wrong reason for voting a particular way: if I had tossed a coin in order to decide on which way to vote in June's referendum, do you really think that "because it came up heads" would have been a good reason for a "yes" vote?

Easier to stay at home I would have thought but, yes, this vote would be granted as much weight as any other by society as a vote by someone who has written a doctoral dissertation on the subject of the vote. Everyone gets one vote.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think it is worth reminding ourselves that when it comes to voting there's no right or wrong reason. The system goes to some length to make the distinction between rational or capricious voting meaningless. At the end of the day one person's vote carries the same weight as another's. "Capricious" votes are counted the same as any other.

It has taken society a long time to arrive at this stage and it is not going to change simply because some people feel some other people did not vote for the (in their view) "correct" reasons.

With rights come responsibilities but these responsibilities cannot negate the right of a free vote.

I agree. Any attempt to divide votes into 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' vote is extremely dangerous. It's a very short step from there to dividing voters into legitimate and illegitimate.

The only acceptable reason for having a second referendum is if circumstances have changed. Given the way our Constitution is constructed, the government will be the people deciding whether to call another referendum - which, in turn, will no doubt be described as 'illegitimate' by many who decry the description of the No vote as illegitimate, but which for exactly the same reasons, cannot be illegitimate as long as a free vote is exercised.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

SkepticOne wrote: »

Easier to stay at home I would have thought but, yes, this vote would be granted as much weight as any other by society as a vote by someone who has written a doctoral dissertation on the subject of the vote. Everyone gets one vote.

Thanks for sharing. Any chance of you answering the question I asked?

oscarBravo

Scofflaw wrote: »

I agree. Any attempt to divide votes into 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' vote is extremely dangerous. It's a very short step from there to dividing voters into legitimate and illegitimate.

I'm not aware that anyone suggested either of the above. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of people suggesting that that's what other people are suggesting, however.

The only acceptable reason for having a second referendum is if circumstances have changed.

I would consider a significant reduction in the percentage of the electorate claiming not to have a clue what they're voting on a change in circumstances.

Scofflaw

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not aware that anyone suggested either of the above. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of people suggesting that that's what other people are suggesting, however.

Hmm. I could certainly name at least a couple of posters here who have either explicitly suggested it or strongly implied it.

However, there is equally certainly no public call for the No votes to be considered illegitimate, nor is that the reasoning for a second referendum, so in that sense, yes, the No side are largely using it as a tactical ploy.

oscarBravo wrote: »

I would consider a significant reduction in the percentage of the electorate claiming not to have a clue what they're voting on a change in circumstances.

I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm not sure exactly where one would set the bar. I would be happier with a change in the external circumstances - guarantees on issues of concern, clear indications that not ratifying would lead to a material change in Ireland's relationship with the EU.


cordially,
Scofflaw

pirelli

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think it is worth reminding ourselves that when it comes to voting there's no right or wrong reason. The system goes to some length to make the distinction between rational or capricious voting meaningless. At the end of the day one person's vote carries the same weight as another's. "Capricious" votes are counted the same as any other.

It has taken society a long time to arrive at this stage and it is not going to change simply because some people feel some other people did not vote for the (in their view) "correct" reasons.

With rights come responsibilities but these responsibilities cannot negate the right of a free vote.

SkepticOne,

I found that opinion very eye opening I suppose you can't vote if you dont know the true impact of your vote. The value of a vote is bigger topic again.

I suppose a vote is good whether or not its a trivial decision or serious well thought through affair. If you have a vague notion about something and vote based on that notion then your vote has had an effect.

I disagree with your anology of tossing a coin. Statistically there is a 50/50 chance that you will get either a heads or a tails. Therefore if one was to vote not on instinct but on chance than you will find that the each voter will cancel out the next voter. Of 100 men, 50 will vote for Obama and 50 for McCain based on the statitical probability of a flip of a coin, which is 0.5.
Therefore to vote by chance is not to vote at all.




Benjamin Franklin on the suffrage

Today a man owns a jackass worth fifty dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. The man in the meantime has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers — but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass?

bonkey

oscarBravo wrote: »

The suggestion that someone should actually think carefully about their decision before casting a ballot is in no way incompatible with a free and secret ballot.

Indeed. As you say - its a suggestion as to what people should do. It is not a dictate as to what they must do. People are all too quick to quote Spiderman, and remind us that with great power comes great responsibility, but what they forget is that responsibility is an onus which can be shirked, while the power remains regardless.

do you really think that "because it came up heads" would have been a good reason for a "yes" vote?

I think it would be a particularly stupid reason to vote either which way, but I would accept the validity of the vote. I would also be reasonably secure that the number of people employing such a method would be relatively small, and would statistically cancel each other out.

I would consider a significant reduction in the percentage of the electorate claiming not to have a clue what they're voting on a change in circumstances.

I'm not sure such a benchmark could be meaningfully established without, say, running a referendum to find out

Seriously, though, I would be very reticent about moving towards the notion that "the mood has changed, so lets revote". If anything, I would prefer to see the opposite approach - that the government take steps to formalise laws which explicitly prevent this. As Scofflaw suggested, there should rather be a change in what is being voted on.

Scofflaw

I suppose a vote is good whether or not its a trivial decision or serious well thought through affair.

I would say it's an equally valid vote. It's not an equally good reason for voting a particular way, though.

We can define a sort of perfect vote, which is the one cast by an omniscient being (with perfect understanding) on the disinterested basis of the future good of the electorate. Anything less than that benchmark is less perfect a vote, but equally valid.

Interestingly, there's an obvious mirror image, of a vote cast by an omniscient being (with perfect understanding) on the disinterested basis of the future ill of the electorate. Again, both votes are equally valid, but I think most of us would accept that we preferred not to have our future dictated by he second kind of voter, since they are literally voting against our interests.

Fond though I am of referendums, they are, like all real forms of democracy, a good deal less than perfect. Being imperfect, and having, as they do, a particular set of imperfections, they can be substituted by other real forms with different imperfections - whether a referendum is better or worse than any other form depends on how you weight the imperfections.

cordially,
Scofflaw

is_that_so

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think it is worth reminding ourselves that when it comes to voting there's no right or wrong reason. The system goes to some length to make the distinction between rational or capricious voting meaningless. At the end of the day one person's vote carries the same weight as another's. "Capricious" votes are counted the same as any other.

It has taken society a long time to arrive at this stage and it is not going to change simply because some people feel some other people did not vote for the (in their view) "correct" reasons.

With rights come responsibilities but these responsibilities cannot negate the right of a free vote.

A free vote is also one that should be wisely exercised with due respect to the civic duty , in my view, we all have as citizens. To me there is an onus on all of us to inform ourselves, whether it be for election, referendum or any other purpose and then make our decision on how we have informed ourselves. In effect we need to be able to say to ourselves that "this is a serious and important decision and I have done my best to inform myself in order to make my choice".