On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 07:48:51 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
If you're on FB anyway, then this group is pretty sensible, although a
bit low volume. It 'only' has 300 odd members (I was going to say) but
compared to here...
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 14:53:12 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
And why it's ridiculous to give all of them the say, even on things
that are important to *them*.
Like, they might not like the idea of 'immigration' because they think
the 'foreigners' are 'coming here illegally and are given a new flat,
a car and £10,000 a week'. In the real world we know that isn't true.
So, they vote for whatever person / party that says they are going to
deal with 'immigration' when 1) it will have no impact on 99.9%
immigrants they are talking about and 2) their own quality of life
could get worse because there will be fewer people to wash their cars,
treat them at the doctors or hospital, serve them in shops late at
night or on the weekends, cook and deliver their food and pay tax to
pay for their pensions.
Most of them don't like what they don't understand and they can't
understand because they aren't intelligent, are (therefore) arrogant,
don't look and don't listen (like bm and his kind).
They have tunnel vision and with that you can never see the 'bigger
So, with our democracy broken this way, maybe there could actually be
a better way ... the problem is getting those who don't have a clue to
realise they don't have a clue and let someone who knows more,
actually make their lives better, not worse like if they had their way
Cheers, T i m
On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 16:02:25 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
Talk about missing the points.
1. Any group not represented by voting right ends up getting anything from
a rather raw deal to neglected & abused.
2. Look at the people that would claim to be suitable to choose who votes -
god forbid that such people ever be in a position to make those choices.
There is one possible response to that. Determine how much vote someone get
s according to IQ. A major problem with it is that IQ does not equal intell
igence or political comprehension, so it's no ideal plan.
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 08:25:54 -0700 (PDT), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
IYHO of course. ;-)
Quite, but with a yes / no vote that could end up with 49% of the
people in any case. When the chances are 99% of those wouldn't know
what was best for them (ITRW) if it was handed to them on a plate.
Quite ... but do you understand the concept of Sortition for example?
Did you know we select juries from the general public, *give them the
best known FACTS)* and ask them to decide of the outcome of a court
Quite, no plan is ideal ... but I really think we can do better than
getting people I wouldn't trust to mow my lawn to decide the future
for my children and grandchildren.
IQ is no real use without EQ, common sense, RW understanding and
Cheers, T i m
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 11:33:43 -0700 (PDT), email@example.com wrote:
Oh, so you can speak for 'a lot of people' authoritatively and I
can't? Talk about egos! ;-)
Really, ok, if I have to spell it out ... You said " Any group not
represented by voting right ends up getting anything from a rather raw
deal to neglected & abused.". So (for example) the Brexit poll
returned 52% if the people who voted voted leave so got what they
wanted. 48% of those who voted didn't get what they wanted and so were
your "ends up getting anything from a rather raw deal to neglected &
Nothing to do with my ego mate because I am one of the 99%. It's those
who *think* they have all the answers who have the ego issues.
Other that trying to get you to be less blinkered / more open minded
and consider that our existing system may be broken and there could be
alternatives that are more pertinent / relevant / efficient /
beneficial (to the majority) *today*.
Then that may demonstrate just how entrenched / acceptant you are that
the current system is the best for all of us.
No, but it seems strange that we (where we as about only half of those
who voted) can take all of us (more than those who voted leave) into
the unknown (Brexit) yet we don't consider a system that *could* be
better for all of us?
Maybe, but it should still be part of the process.
You are probably right and why I often put less steed on IQ over EQ
(as the former doesn't consider all the factors, including the human
Cheers, T i m
Because I'm not aware you have offered an alternative solution? If you
aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem. ;-)
Did you miss the link above somehow?
It's not a plan it's being open to a discussion about the concept.
It is isn't it ... but some people actually could vote without knowing
(or caring about possibly) all the facts. ;-)
Ok, so we all probably know that there was a percentage and
potentially a large percentage who turn up to vote for these polls and
local / general elections who really don't have any real clue.
I assume we hope that these potentially 'unconsidered' votes (from the
potential outcome for all of us pov) will to some degree dilute /
counter those radical voters who may also not be considering the best
outcome for all of us over their own personal (/selfish) interests.
Then, somewhere in the middle are what I believe to be a tiny minority
of those who actually do have a clue and who will vote for *the*
(nearest / most likely) person / party / option to give the best
result for the majority.
To vet the first group (out) a simple random 10 questions from a pool
of say 1000 questions re current affairs / political roles / topics.
To vet out the second group a quick look at their Facebook pages or
bumper stickers should do it. ;-)
Then we let the last batch (who will also have been tested and passed
the above) to actually make a reasoned and educated choice on behalf
of all of us.
Whilst I like the 'idea / ideals' of what we typically call democracy,
the way we vote for it wouldn't make sense for anything other than
'what colour could we paint the local swimming pool' (and then a
multiple choice list of scientifically proven 'appropriate' colours).
So like most of the democracy we are forced to play along with (to
fool some into thinking they actually have a choice), it's often only
a choice between a rock and a hard place (Brexit (as in deciding who
was lying the least)) or a coin toss re the general elections as we
have seen recently , even those we vote in change their minds /
promises as fast as they change their socks, assuming they last long
So we don't want the great unwashed voting for people with empty
promises and all the wasted time, effort and money that involves, we
want just a group of switched on people openly working to process good
business practice and common sense for the benefit of all of us.
We generally trust all sorts of people to do the best for us in other
things, why not that?
Like I have said, I don't have the answers, just keen to consider if
there is anything better than we have now (and looking at the current
mess we are in, there must be!). ;-)
Cheers, T i m
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.