Boomer life according to the economist
Discussion
BandOfBrothers said:
I think spoiling your ballot paper is an outdated form of protest.
Not voting at all and being a negative part of the turnout figures is much more likely to get airtime.
It hasn't so far.Not voting at all and being a negative part of the turnout figures is much more likely to get airtime.
Voter participation amongst the young is somewhere around 30%. That's horrific. And yet the media don't make a fuss about it.
The two changes that WILL make a difference (and so will never be enacted) are:-
- Compulsory voting
- A "none of the above" option - if this gets more votes than any candidate, a second vote needs to be held for that seat with entirely new candidates.
(Combined they have the ability to really screw with politicians)
havoc said:
It hasn't so far.
Voter participation amongst the young is somewhere around 30%. That's horrific. And yet the media don't make a fuss about it.
The two changes that WILL make a difference (and so will never be enacted) are:-
- Compulsory voting
- A "none of the above" option - if this gets more votes than any candidate, a second vote needs to be held for that seat with entirely new candidates.
(Combined they have the ability to really screw with politicians)
Agreed.Voter participation amongst the young is somewhere around 30%. That's horrific. And yet the media don't make a fuss about it.
The two changes that WILL make a difference (and so will never be enacted) are:-
- Compulsory voting
- A "none of the above" option - if this gets more votes than any candidate, a second vote needs to be held for that seat with entirely new candidates.
(Combined they have the ability to really screw with politicians)
There will always be some people who for genuine reasons miss or can't vote, but no shows are ambiguous.
It make the political class lazy as they can bank on apathy.
British people vote so rarely it’s always a new and special experience, with the potential for short-sighted, knee-jerk and ill-informed decisions.
Last week I sent in my postal votes on eight subjects (4 national, 4 local), having read the comprehensive pamphlet outlining the for and against arguments, the recommendations of local/national govts, and information on how each political party was aligned on each issue.
We get to do this four times a year, plus local and national legislative elections every four years. An educated and informed electorate, who gets to vote often, soon gets the idea that non-participation and spoiled ballots are somewhat pointless.
Last week I sent in my postal votes on eight subjects (4 national, 4 local), having read the comprehensive pamphlet outlining the for and against arguments, the recommendations of local/national govts, and information on how each political party was aligned on each issue.
We get to do this four times a year, plus local and national legislative elections every four years. An educated and informed electorate, who gets to vote often, soon gets the idea that non-participation and spoiled ballots are somewhat pointless.
Steve H said:
Are they part of the electorate if they don’t bother to vote?
In my view yes. Every vote counts, so does every non vote.
Imagine an election where 65+ % do not vote. A blind could see that something is not going as it should go.
Its not so farfetched. Venezuela being the vanguard on may thinks shows how politics should not be done.
Funnily enough Venezuelan Gimmicks are more often copied.
You buy the media, news outlets and arrest the people who disturb, stick them criminal charges so they are not immediately declared detained for political reasons.
I agree with (almost) everything that has been said in the last few posts, especially the part about there being nobody you particularly want to vote for. I think the biggest turnout we have seen was for Brexit, at least people had a view and wanted to be counted in that one.
But elections are a numbers game and the only way of them being taken more seriously by politicians is if more people take part. I still think there is still a benefit in choosing to vote for the least-worst candidate, if that is all that is available.
It reminds me of Churchill talking on the same topic. He said that democracy was the worst form of government, except for all the other forms that have been tried.
But elections are a numbers game and the only way of them being taken more seriously by politicians is if more people take part. I still think there is still a benefit in choosing to vote for the least-worst candidate, if that is all that is available.
It reminds me of Churchill talking on the same topic. He said that democracy was the worst form of government, except for all the other forms that have been tried.
havoc said:
It hasn't so far.
Voter participation amongst the young is somewhere around 30%. That's horrific. And yet the media don't make a fuss about it.
The two changes that WILL make a difference (and so will never be enacted) are:-
- Compulsory voting
- A "none of the above" option - if this gets more votes than any candidate, a second vote needs to be held for that seat with entirely new candidates.
(Combined they have the ability to really screw with politicians)
Can you claim to be a democracy if you force people to vote though? Voter participation amongst the young is somewhere around 30%. That's horrific. And yet the media don't make a fuss about it.
The two changes that WILL make a difference (and so will never be enacted) are:-
- Compulsory voting
- A "none of the above" option - if this gets more votes than any candidate, a second vote needs to be held for that seat with entirely new candidates.
(Combined they have the ability to really screw with politicians)
NaePasaran said:
havoc said:
It hasn't so far.
Voter participation amongst the young is somewhere around 30%. That's horrific. And yet the media don't make a fuss about it.
The two changes that WILL make a difference (and so will never be enacted) are:-
- Compulsory voting
- A "none of the above" option - if this gets more votes than any candidate, a second vote needs to be held for that seat with entirely new candidates.
(Combined they have the ability to really screw with politicians)
Can you claim to be a democracy if you force people to vote though? Voter participation amongst the young is somewhere around 30%. That's horrific. And yet the media don't make a fuss about it.
The two changes that WILL make a difference (and so will never be enacted) are:-
- Compulsory voting
- A "none of the above" option - if this gets more votes than any candidate, a second vote needs to be held for that seat with entirely new candidates.
(Combined they have the ability to really screw with politicians)
However….we would spend forever with elections….I would bet that at least 50% of seats would be constantly looking for new candidates
mikeiow said:
If they have the option to tick that new box, I would say ‘yes’…..they exercise their right to not vote by ticking it. Pedants will point out I am wrong, of course!
However….we would spend forever with elections….I would bet that at least 50% of seats would be constantly looking for new candidates
...and that would force politicians to actually think about what the electorate and the country want.However….we would spend forever with elections….I would bet that at least 50% of seats would be constantly looking for new candidates
(Or possibly all just make unrealistic promises to get in, then ignore them!
)Steve H said:
But elections are a numbers game and the only way of them being taken more seriously by politicians is if more people take part
Not necessarily - if current turnout is biased to people who are less easily fooled, increasing turnout simply means politicians can go with a higher bullpoop strategy and have a higher chance of winning.xeny said:
Not necessarily - if current turnout is biased to people who are less easily fooled, increasing turnout simply means politicians can go with a higher bullpoop strategy and have a higher chance of winning.
Bit of an arrogant view, no?. Assuming people have low levels of intelligence because they don't participate is hardly a winning view point. And I'd point out that the partisans who do vote, may be no more or actually less intelligent.The only way to get democratic legitimacy is increase participation. Assuming how those who don't vote think is a BS strawman used all too frequently.
The politicians are there to serve, don't given them an easy ride. Overtime there will be more choice, but we have to break the back of this cycle.
OoopsVoss said:
Bit of an arrogant view, no?.
How so? I've no evidence handy one way or the other regarding those who choose, or choose not to exercise their franchise, just pointing out that forcing people to vote wouldn't necessarily force politicians to take elections more seriously.xeny said:
OoopsVoss said:
Bit of an arrogant view, no?.
How so? I've no evidence handy one way or the other regarding those who choose, or choose not to exercise their franchise, just pointing out that forcing people to vote wouldn't necessarily force politicians to take elections more seriously.Let’s face it, telling a politician that you don’t vote is hardly going to motivate him to consider your views on anything.
Steve H said:
Let’s face it, telling a politician that you don’t vote is hardly going to motivate him to consider your views on anything.
It takes just a few press conferences when a reporter live begins questioning a newly won election how he feels to govern against 85% of his people. A little coverage and a hype and the newly elected government look for asylum. In any given country it could go that way. How to wake up reporters? Journalism it is not they usually publish.
NickZ24 said:
Steve H said:
Let’s face it, telling a politician that you don’t vote is hardly going to motivate him to consider your views on anything.
It takes just a few press conferences when a reporter live begins questioning a newly won election how he feels to govern against 85% of his people. A little coverage and a hype and the newly elected government look for asylum. In any given country it could go that way. How to wake up reporters? Journalism it is not they usually publish.
PM - "Much better than it did when a bigger proportion were voting for someone else. In fact it suits me fine that so many didn’t turn out, it might have been a different result if they had".
Actually that’s not correct, he is a politician so instead of saying what he is thinking has to let the bulls
t flow -PM - "I am here to do my best for all the people and will make Britain stronger, waffle waffle waffle, ignore point of the question etc"
The people who don’t vote are the same ones that don’t care that people don’t vote, no amount of press conferences is going to change that.
Steve H said:
The people who don’t vote are the same ones that don’t care that people don’t vote, no amount of press conferences is going to change that.
I doubt that. People who don't vote come from all classes and for all reasons. And if those press conferences get enough traction they'd have an effect. It just needs to be loud enough. The silent majority needs to wake up.
BandOfBrothers said:
Perhaps its time to revisit the PR discussion?
At least that way every vote counts.
To restart the Boomer Debate which took a few turns. At least that way every vote counts.
The economist claims (again) Boomers are loaded but stingy.
Economist said:
Few boomers are downsizing to smaller homes, which would free up cash for the finer things in life. Empty-nest boomers own 28% of America’s homes with three or more bedrooms, according to Redfin, a property firm. Every self-respecting boomer has a spare bedroom. Indeed, in England about 20% of all bedrooms are spare bedrooms.
https://archive.is/BMvZ9So boomers are loaded? I'm a boomer but unfortunately I'm definitely not loaded.
In the U.S. the boomers are sitting in large houses with 2% mortgage on a 30 year term. If they move house they go into a 30 year mortgage on 7% which is a big deterrent to move.
Of course, there are those who have paid off but I can imagine a lot have not paid off their mortgage when the conventional model is to just pay it off over 30 years.
In the UK, it is often sentimental attachment to the family home which prevents them from moving on.
Of course, there are those who have paid off but I can imagine a lot have not paid off their mortgage when the conventional model is to just pay it off over 30 years.
In the UK, it is often sentimental attachment to the family home which prevents them from moving on.
NickZ24 said:
BandOfBrothers said:
Perhaps its time to revisit the PR discussion?
At least that way every vote counts.
To restart the Boomer Debate which took a few turns. At least that way every vote counts.
The economist claims (again) Boomers are loaded but stingy.
Economist said:
Few boomers are downsizing to smaller homes, which would free up cash for the finer things in life. Empty-nest boomers own 28% of America’s homes with three or more bedrooms, according to Redfin, a property firm. Every self-respecting boomer has a spare bedroom. Indeed, in England about 20% of all bedrooms are spare bedrooms.
https://archive.is/BMvZ9So boomers are loaded? I'm a boomer but unfortunately I'm definitely not loaded.
I could downsize and retire tomorrow but living in a home that I love with lots of space around me isn’t a luxury I have any plans on giving up.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff