> You're very wrong about the people that I consider more informed just having aligned political interests. The vast majority of them were significantly to the right of myself.
If you say so (I have no way to verify this). Generally however it is the case that people behave the way I describe. This is because most people analyse things through a them/us filter, not based on the facts.
> Centralisation is a useful property since the median opinion is closer to the centre. First past the post adds variance that isn't reflective of the average voters opinion, since votes go to the mode party. Under preferential voting, votes flow to the median party.
There is no "median" opinion, like the concept of the "average person" they don't exist, so how can they be represented?
Also the concept of "centre" is assuming that "right" vs "left" politics is valid model. Since the right and left have literally changed important policy positions (when convenient) in the last 20-30 years, I realised the descriptors don't actually really mean anything. The right vs left is just a way of labelling people as part of the alternative faction, so people can easily dismiss their opinion.
Most people think I am part of the right. I realised I wasn't when I noticed I shared a number of views with a Revolutionary Black communist in the USA than the Conservative party of the UK (I am English).
> Because of this effect, you also get a broader range of parties representing the views of a wider cohort of voters. In my local electorate, for example, there are over 7 parties vying for our seat, ranging from an agrarian socialist party, to far right sovereign citizens. I'm not aware of any country without preferential voting with this type of range.
This assumes that this is all a good thing. It also assumes that those elected represent the interests of their voters (they don't BTW, that is another rabbit hole).
Have you asked yourself why should everyone be represented? I do not ask my mechanic their opinion about medicine, I do not ask my doctor his opinion about car repair.
So why is it a good thing that someone's views are represented when they will have at best a very surface level understanding of a particular speciality / issue / topic? It isn't a good idea.
> The fact that people like you are disengaged with politics is kind of why I prefer compulsory voting.
So you want to force me to participate when I don't want to? I don't want to participate at all. Why do you think that is okay at all? Because you think it gives better representation. Whether something is "better" is very subjective. That is bullshit as far as I am concerned.
> In countries without compulsory voting, opinions like yours don't get reflected in party policy. Here (apart from the stance against compulsory voting, which is wildly unpopular, and only held by very fringe parties), the opinions of people less likely to vote in other countries are broadly reflected in parliament.
You don't understand my political opinions at all. No party policy would/could or would I want them to reflected in party policy. I told you I don't want to participate in it at all. I don't want it to exist. So how it could it represent me? It can't.
Why put the [citation needed]? I've told you what my rationale is behind my statement. Just argue against my logic.
> An opposite argument is that compulsory voting smooths out or buffers the extreme radical urgency of any faction that might, in the right circumstances, carry the day in a low-turnout election.
That is a bad thing IMO. I am (and many other people) are disenfranchised by mainstream politics and I want to see more radical ideas/policies/opinions, I (and many others) don't want more of the same.
> Absolutely not my experience coming from a country with compulsory voting, and having lived in a country without. People in the country without were generally more ignorant of their own politics, and the few people I met who understood what was going on were hesitant to vote.
All of this is an anecdote. It isn't proof of anything.
I also think that the people that you think are more informed actually weren't more informed and were probably just happened to have the same brand of politics that you happened to subscribe to, and vice versa for the people that you thought were ignorant / uninformed. I see this pattern in almost all mainstream political discussion.
BTW being actually informed means having a deep understanding of the topics at hand and the majority of people simply won't have this because they may not have the time/motivation to delve into such topics. The vast majority of people aren't willing to do this seriously and end up just parroting what they've been told by people on the TV/Youtube/Twitch/Tiktok etc.
> Compulsory voting, and in particular compulsory preferential voting also has a highly centralising effect, which adds to long term stability.
I doubt there is any proof to this assertion at all.
Also why would be a centralising effect be considered a good thing?
Many people (including myself) are disenfranchised with the current political class/system because they don't offer anything different, so you are telling me (someone that is disenfranchised) that I should support this because it will guarantee more of the same. You aren't selling me this idea.
I don't want to participate in the circus that is politics. I see it nothing other than a popularity contest, where my choice is largely irrelevant (as the voters always get shafted) and the candidates are all almost always scumbags that I wouldn't want representing my interests anyway.
So you are suggesting not only that I have to vote (something I think is absolute waste of time), that I also have to put a preference of how I would rank these people I want nothing to do with, so I propagate a status quo that I want to see demolished.
No it isn't the other way around. Some young men (in the UK) in high crime areas will carry them illegally because it makes them feel safer. UK has strict gun and knife laws.
> Except the average person isn't a highways engineer and isn't aware of the road design limits which means 120mph can be unsafe even on a visually empty road.
Firstly there is no such thing as the average person.
Secondly, I don't need to be a "highways engineer" to be able to see there is few / no cars in front of me for over several miles on a long straight, multiple lane highway with no junctions for sometimes miles.
Thirdly, the decision for the motorway speed in the UK is a historical artifact.
Generally most cars (even modern ones) it is unwise to sustain speeds over 90mph for a long duration if the engine is small (coolant systems are more likely to fail, it is hard on engines), it is also not fuel efficient to drive much faster than 60 mph in cars that have engines that are lower than 2.0 litres IME (I've done a lot of driving in different vehicles).
I would prefer they have variable speed limits on motorways / or special toll roads where the limit is higher.
You don't seem to have ever driven on a long, empty, well lit 4 lane carriage way at 4am in he morning. If I am going 70MPH (UK Motorway speed limit) or 120MPH in such a situation makes no difference in terms safety.
In the UK we have variable speed limit roads. When they are busy/obstructions the speed limit is lowered. It is put back to 70mph when the traffic is light / no safety issues.
The safe speed on a road is dependant on the road and the conditions. I've been in situations where driving at faster than 10mph would be dangerous and I've been on the same road and doing 40mph was safe.
> Compulsory preferential voting is a much better protection against tyrants.
This guarantees worse outcomes. You will be effectively forcing people to participate that typically don't care about politics and will be ignorant of many of the issues they are voting on.
The reality is that most elections are won in the same way the X-Factor, or "I'm a celebrity get me out of here". It is nothing more than a popularity contest.
Most of the time I don't need a puncture repair kit / spare inner tube when cycling, but when I have a puncture I really need it.
You don't feel the need for something like a gun for self defence. However if/when you do need to defend yourself then your opinion will quickly change.
The TV license is a relic of the past that is no longer relevant to viewer's viewing habits. It should be abolished. I really don't know why they haven't.
I literally just go on their site and say "I don't need a license because I use my TV for gaming". Then you don't get the nuisance letters for 2 years.
The stuff they showed on those videos a few years ago were a lot of the often balloons or children's birthday balloons and the incredible speeds were ~40mph.
There is several guys that on YouTube that seriously investigate the UFO sightings and almost all of them are either flares, children's balloons or in some cases people literally filming a reflection of a light fitting in a hotel room.
Fewer and fewer people are watching the traditional TV programming. Even with the hobbyist stuff that I used yo enjoy watching on TV that is now on YouTube. Anyone under 50 are using streaming services or watching YouTube \ Kick \ Twitch.
They are never going to increase revenue now as people don't use these services.
I think the screenshots are a bit squashed. When he was doing Andreas was doing streams the fonts looked fine they just wasn't using hinting/cleartype.
Yep. It is honestly tiresome. It is the same bad arguments are repeated ad-nauseam. The UK government and various public entities have been repeatedly shown to abuse the powers given to them.
It doesn't matter if you show all the times it was abused, or someone life has been ruined for because they drunkely said something stupid on facebook, it is just ignored or if it later gets overturned that it is no big deal even though they had to spent months or years dealing with the legal system.
I have spoken to a lot of young people (typically men) in their 20s that just want to leave the country because they can see where this is all going.
Anyway my top comment has been made dead. I hate this site.
This is exhausting. Now you are bringing up US politics. We are talking about the UK and the UK law.
I have linked you the communications act of 2003, I have linked you examples of cases where people have be prosecuted for speech and you are going on about the current Administration in the United States which is on the other-side of an ocean.
I am asking you when have you met someone in real life that is "far right"? You are unlikely to have done so because there is maybe a few thousand at most in a country of 80 million people.
I have seen the leaked membership details of the BNP. Do you know how many people were in the BNP? IIRC it was less than 500 people for the entire UK.
You are talking as if there are Brown Shirts marching up every UK high street.
Is the "far right" in the room now with you now? When have you dealt with any of the "far right". How do you know they really exist? Most of the people I've encountered on the far right have been losers that literally live with their mother or edgy teenagers trolling people online.
It is you my friend that has been propagandised. They always point at a scary person and then say that they need to take away your rights and your privacy.
> It's a crime to conspire to murder; to commit fraud; to arrange an act of terrorism; and so on. And in all relevant cases, social media was used in court after-the-fact just as evidence.
Why should I lose privacy and my ability to speak freely because someone else committed an unrelated crime?
Why does this require mass surveillance, when they can get a warrant to search their electronic devices?
The answer is I shouldn't.
> So we're talking about activity on social media which are crimes themselves, just being used as evidence after other crimes have been committed.
Some of this activity that are crimes is making edgy comments on twitter while drunk and then deleting it the next day. That is illegal under the communications act of 2003.
They could you know arrest the person and search the phone under suspicion, or get a court order. They don't need mass surveillance. Maybe they should do their job and actually investigate it, which they don't do.
You can always justify more infringements on personal liberties under the guise of stopping crime, protecting the children, stopping the terrorists. That doesn't mean we should.
What we shouldn't be doing is using resources to find people saying naughty words on facebook (which is literally what they do).
This was literally posted here like last week, I suggest you read it: