What would change if EVERYTHING was put to referendum?
- Thread starter britboy4321
- Start date
America, yes I would much rather be on their side than against it. I am not saying they are the most powerful force in the world, but we're not exactly the largest so being on their side. Good idea I think
England needs to remember where it came from to see where it's going
A stallion needs to be broken first, if it's to realise it's true potential
Are you quoting Star Trek?
oooooooo
Who's a bright penny
a cookie if you guess correctly again
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
Sounds good to me 
Actually I think it's a valid point. We elect governments to deal with these matters to a large extent.
Here's a list of major referendums held in the UK and I wonder how many people would fully understand any of these matters if asked today.
For example, I remember colleagues in the office trying to understand the alternative vote, trying to convince each other how it really works. They weren't 'stupid' people either (not quoting you, just making a point!).
- Northern Ireland sovereignty referendum, 1973, on whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or join the Republic of Ireland (UK)
- United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975', on whether the UK should remain part of the European Economic Community (yes)
- Scottish devolution referendum, 1979, on whether there should be a Scottish Assembly (small majority voted yes, but fell short of the 40% threshold required to enact devolution)
- Welsh devolution referendum, 1979, on whether there should be a Welsh Assembly (no)
- Scottish devolution referendum, 1997, Two questions: On whether there should be a Scottish Parliament (yes); On whether a Scottish Parliament should have tax varying powers (yes)
- Welsh devolution referendum, 1997, on whether there should be a National Assembly for Wales (yes)
- Greater London Authority referendum, 1998, on whether there should be a Mayor of London and Greater London Authority (yes)
- Northern Ireland Belfast Agreement referendum, 1998, on the Good Friday Agreement (yes)
- Northern England devolution referendums, 2004, on an elected regional assembly (no)
- Welsh devolution referendum, 2011 (yes)
- United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011, 5 May 2011. (no)
I remember politicians trying to understand it as they went along it seemed sometimes. Some of the 'explanations' were astounding for our ruling political class, yet we are divided from them in opinion by some for some reason.
No one has a monopoly on wisdom. To pretend a tiny fraction does, and that the majority are broadly below average intelligence as a comparison is a falsehood.
Do people understand trade and devolution? I think pretty much yes they do. Particularly when you are in the 'region' effected. People are the origins of sovereignty, there is no getting away from it regardless how the 'elite' want to portray things.
Last edited:
It's not about the intellectual ability of individuals.
I can think back to an episode of Question Time when the Lisbon Treaty was up for debate. Both audience and some panelists appeared clueless on the subject.
I don't doubt the intelligence of the general public. I'm sure most are quite capable of understanding politics but I'm also reasonably confident many would vote based on someone elses opinion, be it a friend or a tabloid newspaper.
It's not different to a general election.
More to the pity.
So what are you trying to argue here? You think people aren't thick but generally don't come to their own conclusions using various types of evidence?
No it's not any different from a general election, I saw no one saying people were too stupid so much during that campaign period or any other in the past. Well, Dolph, but he was also attacking Labour and acting as a proponent for the Conservative party at the time so I'm not sure how to reconcile that..
That's exactly what I'm trying to say. And I didn't think we were arguing
I don't think people will spend their time reading up on issues to the point their vote is fully informed, instead opting to agree with their daily read or some other influence. Yes, they'll completely understand the fundamentals if it's directly relative to their way of life, e.g.'do we agree to austerity measures', but may not fully realise the full consequences their vote might have.
Such influences may not necessarily equate to actual evidence. In fact they're unlikely to.
/fluffle
The problem is that people are greatly influenced by those around them.
To ignore this is to ignore the results of many experiments.
An interesting one which I read about recently,
Imagine a game, in which a group of 20 people are asked to match an object to a picture.
A series of very easy & basic tests in which people match up lines & shapes to a selection on another board.
In standard tests 97% of people consistently got it correct.
To test how much group opinion effects decision making they then got 19 confederates to the scientist & 1 genuine person who has no understanding of the test.
For this test it was identical, except that everybody had to speak out whichever answer they pick. The 19 confederates deliberately pick the wrong answer.
What happened?, well it seems that on average (this test has been repeated 100's of times) the person went from getting it correct 97% of the time to a terrible 34%.
What makes it worse is that the human mind has trouble distinguishing an idea heard from 10 different people, to one heard from the same person 10 times.
This creates "false majorities", in which were very local (usually stupid) people lead the group - with everybody in the group only going along because they believe themselves to be in a monitory (when in reality the leader is).
People are not ration, logical or give a moments thought to how distorted our perceptions of reality can be, from various logical fallacies, bias's or outside influences.
This alone is a pretty strong argument against a referendum based democracy (at least until the population is educated enough on the subjects at hand).
A person may be reasonably intelligent in some areas, but if somebody can't explain the difference between say - FPTP & AV - they should not be voting on it.
To ignore this is to ignore the results of many experiments.
An interesting one which I read about recently,
Imagine a game, in which a group of 20 people are asked to match an object to a picture.
A series of very easy & basic tests in which people match up lines & shapes to a selection on another board.
In standard tests 97% of people consistently got it correct.
To test how much group opinion effects decision making they then got 19 confederates to the scientist & 1 genuine person who has no understanding of the test.
For this test it was identical, except that everybody had to speak out whichever answer they pick. The 19 confederates deliberately pick the wrong answer.
What happened?, well it seems that on average (this test has been repeated 100's of times) the person went from getting it correct 97% of the time to a terrible 34%.
What makes it worse is that the human mind has trouble distinguishing an idea heard from 10 different people, to one heard from the same person 10 times.
This creates "false majorities", in which were very local (usually stupid) people lead the group - with everybody in the group only going along because they believe themselves to be in a monitory (when in reality the leader is).
People are not ration, logical or give a moments thought to how distorted our perceptions of reality can be, from various logical fallacies, bias's or outside influences.
This alone is a pretty strong argument against a referendum based democracy (at least until the population is educated enough on the subjects at hand).
A person may be reasonably intelligent in some areas, but if somebody can't explain the difference between say - FPTP & AV - they should not be voting on it.
The problem is already pretty easy to give a scientifically valid response to.
There is no evidence to suggest that state executions (giving the state authority to kill it's citizens is very authoritarian). reduce crime.
The Nordic model works best so far out of all nations, by using a well structured rehabilitation system & by reducing poverty (the main cause of crime).
This isn't up for debate, individuals with a flawed understanding of the causes of crime, or on what processes are required to reduce it are not qualified to make those choices.
We should follow what the best data indicates & use that as a method of crime reduction, not left/right wing ideology.
Should we not be aiming to do what works?, or what's factually correct? - as opposed to what people may want.
People are either stupid or uneducated, both of which is equally dangerous when making choices which effect our lives in such a way.
That's exactly what I'm trying to say. And I didn't think we were arguing
I never said we were arguing, but it is the point you are arguing/discussing.
Nothing meant by it.
If they do or not is quite openly subjective. I disagree with your ascertion that people en masse are unlikely to be influenced from actual evidence. This is largely unevidenced conjecture as far as I can tell. The fact remains that power comes from the people, they cannot be sidlined because a vocal minority thinks they are more important, informed, intelligent or have better analytical skills than the rest.
The people are sovereign, power vested comes from that sovereignty. They have the ultimate right of say, IQ of 1 or 1000, it doesn't matter.
Last edited:
What if I decide you are of significantly lower intelligence than myself, do I get to send a form away to somewhere to have you disenfranchised?
What are the actual practiciallities of all this elitist dribble?