Democracy 'Intelligent' people vs 'stupid' people

[TinnTinn]

Some people are too stupid to be allowed to vote. I've been hearing a lot of this since the referendum.

Should this come into democracy? Or is it possible that different socio economic, political and regional groups within a country have very different experiences, wants, needs, hopes and aspirations. Chances are these will differ from other groups of people. Does this somehow invalidate their views?

It has always been the case that all adults have the right to vote and there is no IQ test. That is what is called democracy.

I did not vote for the Tory government that we have - but at no point did I consider saying that those who did were thick - they are just people with a different view - that is all.

The answer of course a sizeable proportion of it was voters. Fuck me its like pulling teeth.

And you cannot put all that onto Leave campaign either, I know quite a few remainers where searching for specific EU rules etc to counter act some of the rot that was coming out on friday, on top of that the initial point you and another user made was 1000's searched "What is the EU" after the result, that is not the case... even widening the search terms doesn't imply it was only Leave voters who where misinformed, or who knew little about it..

I didn't call it - I didn't want it. I voted to stay and wasn't expect the out vote. I'd like a second vote or parliament to step in and stop exit.

When the Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1992 taking it into the EU as it is now, the public weren't asked at all. Many of us didn't call it, didn't want it, and would have voted against it given the choice. Finally in 2016 we had the option to decide.

I liked BoatyMcBoatface. I would have taken great interest in what Boaty was getting up to.

Asking the people who voted for Boaty McBoatface was a sensible idea?

That was a consultation and they ended up with another name, didn't they?

As will probably happen with the referendum.

And you cannot put all that onto Leave campaign either, I know quite a few remainers where searching for specific EU rules etc to counter act some of the rot that was coming out on friday, on top of that the initial point you and another user made was 1000's searched "What is the EU" after the result, that is not the case... even widening the search terms doesn't imply it was only Leave voters who where misinformed, or who knew little about it.

Never said it was. Said the exact opposite in fact. Do pay attention!

That was a consultation and they ended up with another name, didn't they?

Exactly! They don't trust the electorate for somthing as simple as that, why would they on something this big?

The referendum is not legally biding, though.

Parliament can say the majority is not sufficient for them to approve leaving the EU.

As Farage would argue if the result had been reversed.

Except they are too lily -livered to do so, yet also too scared to actually push the article 50 button. Therein lies the problem.

I did think the Tory government getting in this time round, however, was the result of stupidity... Too much tactical voting that backfired, too much protest voting against the Lib Dems for not being the first party in history to break a promise, etc. We ended up with a party in power that a significant minority of people actually wanted which has acted ever since as though it had a strong mandate to change the face of Britain as quickly and irreversibly as possible before it gets chucked out, so that nobody can fix the changes they have rushed through in their obsession with ensuring gross inequality.

It has always been the case that all adults have the right to vote

Er no it hasn't. In your lifetime, maybe. But we don't even have to go back 100 years, and women had no vote.

People were lied to by the Leve campaign - it's easy to win a campaign if you lie and much harder to win if you tell the truth.

But I understand the Leave vote. For many people stuck in shit towns with no future for them or their children, it was a chance to protest against what they saw as the source of their shit deal - immigration.

The conservatives are contemptuous of these people regarding them as pond life who will never vote Tory ever. The Labour Party is not listening to them because what these people are saying is not palatable - it is angry, it is racist. But it is also people speaking from a position of desperation and hopelessness brought about by austerity.

This is not about European trade deals, subsidies or ludicrous legislation. It's about vast swathes of people disenfranchised and making a protest vote.

What scares me is that these people are vulnerable to far right wing propaganda and politics and political our leaders are not capable of addressing this because they are incompetent and inadequate.

I don't blame people for this vote - when you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose.

I did not vote for the Tory government that we have - but at no point did I consider saying that those who did were thick - they are just people with a different view - that is all.

The problem with that is there were a multitude of views, candidates and balancing of reasons to select a choice.

This fucking referendum was a Yes/No choice over something people feel deeply - almost religiously about. There can be no middle ground or compromise. Now in other universes, issues like that are usually examined, debated, and acted upon by our representatives.

"Parliament can say the majority is not sufficient for them to approve leaving the EU. As Farage would argue if the result had been reversed."

Farage isn't an MP, or a party leader, or anything to do with the official Leave campaign. So what he thinks about it isn't relevant.

"It has always been the case that all adults have the right to vote and there is no IQ test. That is what is called democracy."
That's not true. Originally in the UK you had to own a house, be male and over 30 or something like that. The idea was those who owned properties were probably the more sensible people who might ..
Here we are:

King Henry VI of England established in 1432 that only owners of property worth at least forty shillings, a significant sum, were entitled to vote in a county. The franchise was restricted to males by custom rather than statute.[64] Changes were made to the details of the system, but there was no major reform until the Reform Act 1832.[nb 1] A series of Reform Acts and Representation of the People Acts followed. In 1918, all men over 21 and women over 30 won the right to vote, and in 1928 all women over 21 won the right to vote resulting in universal suffrage.[66]

Reform Act 1832 – extended voting rights to adult males who rented propertied land of a certain value, so allowing 1 in 7 males in the UK voting rights.
Reform Act 1867 – extended the franchise to men in urban areas who met a property qualification, so increasing male suffrage.
Representation of the People Act 1884 – addressed imbalances between the boroughs and the countryside; this brought the voting population to 5,500,000, although 40% of males were still disenfranchised because of the property qualification.
Between 1885 and 1918 moves were made by the women's suffrage movement to ensure votes for women. However, the duration of the First World War stopped this reform movement.
Representation of the People Act 1918 – the consequences of World War I persuaded the government to expand the right to vote, not only for the many men who fought in the war who were disenfranchised, but also for the women who helped in the factories and elsewhere as part of the war effort. All men aged 21 and over were given the right to vote. Property restrictions for voting were lifted for men. Votes were given to 40% of women, with property restrictions and limited to those over 30 years old. This increased the electorate from 7.7 million to 21.4 million with women making up 8.5 million of the electorate. Seven percent of the electorate had more than one vote. The first election with this system was the 1918 general election.
Representation of the People Act 1928 – equal suffrage for women and men, with voting possible at 21 with no property restrictions.
Representation of the People Act 1948 – the act was passed to prevent plural voting.
Representation of the People Act 1969 – extension of suffrage to those 18 and older.

I think the important economic indicators won't be known for some time. GDP, actual and predicted growth and total revenue and borrowing the Government has.

Papers like the Daily Mail are suddenly fascinated by the day to day changes in the FTSE. It's when the reality of growth comes out that we can say what's happened and is likely to happen to the UK.

Even the Daily Mail can't spin growth rates and public borrowing and spending committments.

Girlgonewild

Thank you for highlighting that since 1066, universal suffrage has only covered 88 years.

Tip of the hat to Ireland which I believe allowed women the vote before the UK.

I am well aware that quoting stock market movements over a 24 hour period is completely meaningless when considering the health of pension funds or the economy in the future Cote. However someone has to comment occasionally to counter some of the ridiculous assertions being made.

The more interesting question for me is why the US market has continued to make progress while the UK index has never consistently recovered its January 2000 level but that is a whole other thread. Andrew Neil's quote on 5 year moving average seemed as good a measure as any given the volatility over the past 15 years.

I think of a normal dollar rate as being about 1.50. It has been closer to 1.40 since November. During the 2 years I lived in the US it moved between 1.35ish and 1.65ish without much remark.

However, you want to look at the fact that much of the market optimism today has been prompted by the idea that the UK will retain full access to the market.

Also because of BOE liquidity given to banks with promises of further.

I'd also look at the rating agency, insurers, and banks predictions before you come to talk to me about volatility.

Anyone have children who went through the US school system? We left Before mine were old enough but one thing I noticed was that children there were encouraged/taught to question and discuss, rather than regurgitate facts. Wonder if that has any impact on how we think here as compared to there..?

When the Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1992 taking it into the EU as it is now, the public weren't asked at all. Many of us didn't call it, didn't want it, and would have voted against it given the choice. Finally in 2016 we had the option to decide.

I don't think the public should have been asked this time. I don't think it was done from any desire to actually listen to the people either more an attempt to unify Tory party.

I voted in all General elections I was eligible for - and all local and European Parliament one and last time for Welsh Assembly.

I'm voting for the politicians standing as local candidates - and as they usually belong to parties their parties policies unless that particular candidate has stated they are against it. That how our democracy works.

People could have voted for a party opposed to going into Maastricht Treaty or dedicated to getting us out after.

The referendum isn't binding.

As I understand it even the executive may not be able to just enact Article 50 they may well need a vote in parliament.

Unless there is a general election and remain parties do really well I think they'd vote out - as they would worry ignoring the results would count against them in any subsequent general election - though Ken Clarke has in parliament called for the result to be over turn at least that what I head from his speech last week.

Plus the leave camp seem to have too very different views of what Leave will look like.

One is that we are out completely other is that we remain part of the wider economic trading block - ( think we'd have to pay for that) and at minute EU is saying as part of that we'd have to accept free movement of people. So it's not impossible that a second referendum could be run there - though perhaps that would be too much of a risk for the politicians on other hand could end up with very disappointed section of electorate if they can't get what they want from the leave deal.

Thank you for highlighting that since 1066, universal suffrage has only covered 88 years

Our area has history of Chartism the working class movement, which emerged in 1836 and was most active between 1838 and 1848. The aim of the Chartists was to gain political rights and influence for the working classes. Some were hung others sentenced to transportation in this local area.

Plus Women's suffrage which came later than that.

People had to campaign for years facing hardship and even death to get us to the point of universal suffrage - which we've only had 88 years.

On the back of not liking the vote in one none binding referendum people are seriously suggesting we get rid of it. It's hard to believe.

I think we need to teach history better as well as some economics.

"I am well aware that quoting stock market movements over a 24 hour period is completely meaningless when considering the health of pension funds or the economy in the future Cote. "

I didn't say anything about 24-hour period. I said that it is ridiculous to choose an arbitrary point in the past and feel better about being above it.

You said "The stock market is now back above its 5 year average" and I informed you that nobody looks at a 5-year moving average. The furthest back anyone talks about re averages is the 200-day moving average.

Not Rtft, was a Remain voter. Still think it is a massive mistake to leave. When people are angry they do foolish things that are harmful to themselves and others. We can dwell on the foolishness (and I do) and/or we can look at why they were angry. Whoever is the next PM they will need to do this as a matter of urgency.