The Trump Presidency- After the First 100 days

McVicar

(I dont know football association about politics). Even If that were so, is it not possible to have at least parts of the constitution rewritten? Maybe other countries have already done (or al least tried) this. Just because it worked in *insert year here* doesn't mean it's effective in *insert year here*.

EarthRod

The word 'only' gives the game away.

For example: Only count those who bothered to vote in a democratic process.

Reality in doing something.

The Dude

I think a few people still have a fundamentally distorted view of how democracy works.

Everybody legally entitled to vote is given the opportunity to vote, anybody who choses not to use that vote chooses to accept the winning result as if they voted for it themselves.

People who dont vote dont matter, their views are wholly irrelevant and that was *their* choice for both themselves and their country.

The 'will of the people' is perfectly valid when the phrase is being used to describe those people who are politically relevant.

Non-voters are non-people politically speaking, its impossible to either represent or misrepresent their opinion as they dont have one.

Member 581642

Always thought there should be a "none of the above" option on ballot papers

Toko Black

That still doesn't give you a majority of the people or 'will of the people' position.
a) What it gives you is the largest number of votes for a single [candidate|option] out of the number of votes cast.
AND/OR
b) the largest accumulation of the largest number of votes for a single [candidate|option] out of the votes cast within independent designated subdivisions of the total of eligible voters.

.... which is a bit of a mouth full to say the least.

EarthRod

Whatever floats your boat.

Toko Black

I disagree.

When you use binary options to represent complex issues in an analogue world, you get a 'fundamentally distorted view' of what people want or don't want.

If you ask someone to 'choose' between being shot in the arm or shot in the leg and give them no option to choose either to be shot somewhere else .... or not at all, it is not necessarily going to illicit answers that people want.

You can not represent the analogue level of positive or negative human response to an issue with merely a yes/no (or unsure) choice of answers.

The practicalities and/or design of what available options and measures are in place effect the quality of the results.

Toko Black

What I am saying is that while for practical purposes it is easier to simplify complex ideas, issues and problems into convenient little words and phrases, it can be a serious error in judgment to pay more attention and give undue credence to those words and phrases rather than what they actually were intended to represent.

Cliff

By your definition for ' the will of the people' to apply, everyone would have to vote. i.e. compulsory. Otherwise we will always have a section of the population that didn't vote and we can never determine which way they were inclined. I suspect, many of the non voters were not interested or willing to go with whichever side was in the majority.

Toko Black

neither 'suspecting' what people who didn't vote think, nor ascribing the results of a limited question to complex issues with a yes/no answer will ever give you what the will of the people is.
Even if you force everyone to vote, you will not get a true representation of what people want.

It is merely a matter of accepting that for practical purposes at present we can only have a rough approximation rather than what the political rhetoric used often implies.