41
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2025
41 points (95.6% liked)
UK Politics
3652 readers
112 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I get your frustration... and maybe some voters have been just genuinely mistaken. But calling voters dumb just pushes them away and makes them more likely to vote for some alternative. Their reaction is "you think I'm dumb? Then fuck you, I'm not going to vote for what you want".
If the political centre wants to beat populist causes like Brexit and Reform UK then the centre needs to try to include everyone - even those tempted by Reform. I guess that's what I'm trying to say.
Most voters are effectively as thick as two short planks.
This is immutable fact, demonstrated repeatedly throughout history. Whether or not you or they like the fact is irrelevant, the fact remains; most voters are easily led by their emotions, only able to focus on one issue at a time, and are tribal and short-sighted. In short, stupid.
You need to work with the truth, find a way to harness the stupidity. Trying to convince yourself and others that people en mass aren't dumb, easily led animals will eventually drive you to madness.
That attitude probably won't win any political contests though... voters do not like being thought of as stupid. They want their concerns taken seriously. If we have a political system where we don't listen to certain members of the public then that's basically autocracy.
I don't disagree, but unless we can manage the stupid, democracy will always die to lowest common denominator populism.
I think democracy does a pretty good job of surviving when you have free and fair elections, and proportional representation probably makes politics even more democratic. In European countries that have maintained free and fair elections, they generally haven't plunged into populism. Macron defeated Le Pen twice, for example. AfD have obviously grown their base in Germany, but they haven't entered government. Hungary is arguably ruled by a populist, but some people would say their politics aren't really free and fair anymore. If their politics remained free and fair then populism might have less power.
What you're saying is that to beat the populists, you have to pretend to take the voting morons as seriously as the populists do. And yeah, I get it, it's the least terrible stragegy really. But beyond the facade, those with an education and a working brain really dislike having to fake respect for those who don't deserve any.
Pretending probably isn't enough. If a political movement (such as a centrist or pro-Europe movement) wants to win then it has to take all voters seriously, surely. Or at least as many as possible.
Do you think prisoners deserve any respect? Or do you think they are victims of genetics, bad luck, upbringing etc?
I am not sure where to draw the line for free-will or even if it exists.
We need a better public education system but that isn't going to solve much in our lifetime.
You know a moron who shouldn't vote when you see one. It doesn't matter if they're victims of bad genes or bad upbringing: some people just aren't fit to decide important things. In fact, I'd argue a majority of the population isn't.
But you hit the nail on the head: where do you draw the line?
In this case, where is that hypothetical line that decides those who are "good enough" to votes and those who aren't?
Of course, it's impossible to make the distinction because the decision is almost completely arbitrary. There is no well-established, proven set of scientific criteria to decide whether a human being is worthy of the right to vote.
So we do the next best thing: we let everyone vote. That's democracy. We let everyone vote because not letting everyone vote is always worse. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make me retch when I see a cretin in a MAGA hat who doesn't even know basic history, geography or civics proudly tell you on TV that he voted Trump because Trump'll fix it.
Here in Australia the Left overwhelmingly is kept that we have compulsory voting.
I however think it would not be so difficult to have a civics test before citizens are given licence to vote. We do it with driving after all.
Or science (vaccines, climate change, statistics). Better education at school would definitely help. Half of USAmericans cannot read being 6th grade level. A quarter don't know we orbit the sun. 40% didn't know how long it takes a year to orbit the sun.