To think that democracy isn't necessarily the best form of government?

[Thebestwaytoscareatory]

For example, I'm interested in politics and governance and have spent time learning about the topic, yet my vote counts exactly as much as someone who thinks all brown people are rapists or that all women are nothing more than broodmares.

This doesn't sit right with me. Surely we should acknowledge that some opinions are not as valid as others and take steps to ensure that the lowest common denominator isn't represented equally at elections?

I've just read all my responses and comments on this thread, I have never once said or commented on people actually having the option to vote.

Afaik all democracies have the option to vote without a test to prove knowledge of what constituents are voting for.

Much appreciated.
One of the things that has occurred in conversations with people is when some people vote for x party or brexit it's like did you study what you were voting for or was it more you voted on a whim then usually the ones that vote on the whim were the ones complaining about the outcome of it all,

It certainly won't be any better. And notice how it's already asked you what answers you'd like.

Now as a nerdy type, forged in the fire of elemental particles, I am quite partial to the "right" answer. Not the one that could be broadcast before the watershed, or some other artificial constraint.

But now we are straying into the quagmire of universal truth.

@SerendipityJane The human team behind Chat gpt are still working out how to communicate in a way users like, which is part of their business model I suppose. It's not chat gpt asking, but the company trying to drive up engagement. AI is a huge field and I think has great potential for making complicated decisions in the future. I don't know much about it, but I think running a country well, being fair to all the conflicting interests and needs, is difficult for humans, whose vision is limited to the short term and incomplete knowledge.

I don't think it's difficult for humans to know what the right thing to do is. In fact I think they know pretty much all the time.

It's a lot more difficult for them to actually do it though.

Our short term popularity based election systems mean it is far easier to kick problems into the long grass for someone else to deal with than resolve them now. The net result is that those problems only become worse over time and are only dealt with as a last resort when there is no other option.

I don't see AI changing that.

I think with the coming of the internet and more information, our political outlook has become increasingly short term, as focus is put on political events on a short term basis, and any long term planning is effectively ignored.

Apologies I thought you were the OP

I don't think it's difficult for humans to know what the right thing to do is.

Some humans think the right thing to do is prevent pregnant women having abortions.

Some humans don't.

Some humans think homosexuality should be punished by death.

Some humans don't.

The human team behind ChatGPT are still working out how to communicate in a way users like, which is part of their business model I suppose.

It's starting to emerge that the team behind ChatGPT haven't yet realised what they are doing. Or more precisely what they have done. Which is odd, since they had the smarts to correctly call it a large language learning model.

I’m so old! I prefer “human” as an adjective!!

However I agree short term election gains stop long term planning. Many areas of government are failing to plan for the future, eg social care, electricity supply when we try to replace fossil fuels, NHS services, and many many more.

@GasPanic You are so right that politicians don't deal with issues that become worse over time. They avoid measures which will alienate their voters or the interests of business. But their judgement is skewed by consideration of their careers, their financial interests and by personal bias. Since AI has no emotion and no interest in money, it should be free of these flaws and able also to make accurate forecasts. I think a lot of failure to act is just human laziness as well, or inability - it's just too hard to solve problems on such a large scale. AI may well have ruled out Brexit as a logical action. It may even have calculated the sheer ridiculousness of asking the population to decide that one, when virtually none of us had the expertise to predict all the issues. I don't know quite how an AI PM would work, but I think it has potential.
@serendipityjane Are you thinking Chat gpt is going rogue? It's an interesting thought, I don't understand it enough to know if that's a possibility, but my nerdy friends seem to think it's not!

@serendipityjaneAre you thinking Chat gpt is going rogue?

The full Skynet ? Nah.

But as it advances it's going to produce results that can't be predicted. Precisely because it is being trained by the chaotic input of humans.

And if you are cornered by an AI bore at a party, just innocently ask for a definition of "intelligence" before you can consider the "artificial" bit of it.

It's just when people are giving the choice of voting on complex issues for parties in the General election, or e.g. Brexit but then they afterwards realise what a mistake it was, and then when you discuss with friends or people you know and they say oh newspaper x was saying y so I voted for that party, or we need our own trade deals, based on newspapers M,

So what? What if I said that you couldn't vote because of your "bad" opinions? (Such as not believing every voter has an equal vote).

Some of the ignorance and lack of thinking on this thread is downright scary. The lack of understanding of the history & theory of British representative democracy is depressing.

First and foremost I'm not advocating only x people get to vote.

My point is when or if people vote on a whim, then why complain about e.g. Brexit ect when if you had studied the information in more detail you may have voted differently. Etc. Same for general elections.

@FarEast Might that be because posters aren’t British? Or have had a short time here? There seems a lot of posturing but lack of understanding.

"Representative democracy is a form of democracy in which people vote for representatives who then vote on policy initiatives; as opposed to direct democracy, a form of democracy in which people vote on policy initiatives directly."

surely a representative democracy functions best if all members vote for x candidate or party based on detailed understanding of what that party stands for, rather than oh I voted x party but didn't realise they advocate x.

The lack of understanding of the history & theory of British representative democracy is depressing.

It very much is a reflection of real life though. If it were limited to politics it would be worrying. Luckily it extends across science, medicine, technology, arithmetic and statistics.

Of course it does. But the problem is how you enforce it. In an ideal world, yes, everyone who votes will have an interest in who they are voting for. But all you do by putting a test in place is exclude people. Probably those lacking education in general, who will tend to be the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
We can see already that those who vote ( the elderly) have the most power. We have governments who are willing to let the young suffer in the future for the sake of short term electoral gain. It is clear that all that will happen is that the 'tests' ( set by whom? ) will weed out the most expensive- people with low educational attainment are more likely to need benefits, have low paying jobs, be in need of health and social care, be long term unemployed- and cater for those who are interested in politics. It is far better to change the voting system to make it more representative and have compulsory voting than exclude more people. Compulsory voting may force people to do a bit of research. They will be forced to get off their butts and go to the polling booth under threat of a fine, so a few may decide they may as well have a look at who to vote for.

We do have an issue that manifestos are not followed when a party is in government. There’s not enough money, unforeseen issues arise, it was a poor policy in the first place, world events take over, we have an immediate crisis etc. So voters don’t always trust any party. It’s naive to think any party can do everything they say. It’s why many people vote with a few policies in mind. Or general gut persuasion because of generational beliefs. So knowing policies is pretty rare and often discounted.

The argument for staying in the EU was complex. It could not beat the simplistic reaction: too many Europeans here, too much interference and too costly. Some voters saw “sovereignty” as more important than trading ease. They didn’t understand trade and it was discussed in a fog of rhetoric. So hard to explain.

We do have an issue that manifestos are not followed when a party is in government.

Thats a good point. To all those posters advocating reading up on the plans of each party before the election - what if you like the idea of what they are proposing and then they don’t do it?
How are people to know which manifesto promises will happen and which won’t?

@Barbadossunset They don’t. That’s why we get voters not voting for a party because they don’t like or like the leader, just respond to 3 word slogans (Get Brexit Done) and various other likes and dislikes which might or might not be linked to policies. Most people pick a few reasons to vote for a party and rarely it’s the quality of the potential MP who will represent them. We have moved, by stealth, to a presidential election where the leader means everything. The Conservatives realised this and foisted Johnson on us.

Even now, less than exciting Starmer could struggle. Too many people want a big personality for PM. Hopefully more want a safer pair of hands but it’s difficult to read voting instincts at times.

Sadly, yes @SerendipityJane The great Victorian reformers who revolutionised public education (particularly in the 1870 Education Act) might be quite disappointed to see that the precious resource of education offered to everyone is so debased by most citizens.

But still no reason to allow people like me (very highly educated and widely read) to determine who should be allowed to vote. It’s intolerance and fascism by another name.

It’s intolerance and fascism by another name.

Of course it is, but maybe that’s acceptable to some when the wrong politicians are voted in by people with wrong views.

Next step is usually to get rid of the people with the “wrong” views.

Isn’t that what Johnson did in 2019? The casualties included Churchill’s grandson and a former chancellor.

Maybe Tizer means voters with wrong views.

They don’t stand a chance when highly respected politicians are thrown overboard. We do agree that it’s intolerance and fascism by another name.