A better way to vote?

[zexpe]

It's election day here in Scotland and it's got me thinking again: Instead of just giving you a ballot paper with a bunch of names and parties on it, why aren't there computer terminals at polling stations that provide the conscientious voter with the opportunity to actually read about the policies of the person/party that they are voting for? We

Comments

[rmft]

I'm sorry Ross, but I tend to disagree with this idea that information should be hand-fed to people in this way. Not to mention the problems involved in having every voter read through manifestos for half an hour at the poll station, it's the voters _duty_ to become informed on whatever issues they see fit. If we have a right to vote, we are also obliged to do so in a responsible way.

The BBC did a brilliant job, I agree, and it took 2 clicks to get to it (one on Scotland, and one one Scottish Elections 2007 - harldy difficult to guess). Anyone with internet access (which is free and widely available in many places) has an easy job in finding information, and those who do not will probably find the information in the same way they've always done, be it telivision, newspapers, party's electoral campaign headquarters, etc.

If people are too lazy to do this (and I agree with your 2 groups of votting tactics), then the emphasis should go on teaching people on how and why, not on feeding them information at the last minute, or leave the decision to the result of a quiz.

You're also absolutely right on the complexity of making a well-informed decision, too. It's probably not easy for the parties either, to simplify things and turn a complex plan into a short manifesto. I find it quite similar to the problem of science communication - if we had to go on referendum about dark matter vs mond, we'd have to find a way to put things across in a way accessible to anywone without any knowledge of physics and cosmology. I'm guessing that the complexity of running a country is equality difficult to grasp for anyone without the basic knowledge of economics, politics, project management, etc. I'm not sure what the way around this is, especially since the prize goes to the one who makes a shinnier manifesto - not necessarily the most realistic one, and most people will find it very hard to accuratily estimate whether a political/economical plan is indeed achievable.

Politicians by large adhere to the global policies of their parties, but they apply them in a more local scale. And yes, it should be made very clear how this happens. Many (or their representatives) go door-to-door, giving you the opportunity to meet them and ask questions. Many also have open door policies. In fact, if people were genuinely interested, it wouldn't be so difficult to get hard answers on particular subjects from their local politicians. Again, the apathy is a large part of the problem, and it's apathy which enfuriates me.

Anyway, sorry - this isn't a rant. Well, it rather is isn't it? Sorry - I promise to leave rants for my own journal next time.. ;)

[zexpe]

The biggest problem I always find is that in the voting booth I'm always presented with a list of the names of several independent candidates that I'm seeing for the first time. These people never get a chance to advertise themselves to me before I arrive at the polling station, so ideally why not give these independents a chance to tell me what their policies are when I arrive at the polling station?

[zexpe]

You're also absolutely right on the complexity of making a well-informed decision, too. It's probably not easy for the parties either, to simplify things and turn a complex plan into a short manifesto. I find it quite similar to the problem of science communication - if we had to go on referendum about dark matter vs mond, we'd have to find a way to put things across in a way accessible to anywone without any knowledge of physics and cosmology. I'm guessing that the complexity of running a country is equality difficult to grasp for anyone without the basic knowledge of economics, politics, project management, etc. I'm not sure what the way around this is, especially since the prize goes to the one who makes a shinnier manifesto - not necessarily the most realistic one, and most people will find it very hard to accuratily estimate whether a political/economical plan is indeed achievable.

I partly agree with this... just as you can't make the entire public capable of making an informed decision on the debate between dark matter vs mond you can't expect the populace to understand all the ins and outs of running an economy, and know the details of what is best for them by being best for the entire country. But, and this is a big but, you're giving politicians too much credit. At the end of the day they leave all the big-planning and nitty-gritty details down to the clever civil servants to deal with. The politicians just lead, make decisions based on information the civil servants give them and are the public face in presenting the policies that are increasingly just simply devised by spin doctors. Your average voter should be able to understand how the policy of a candidate will affect them, and so voters should be free to votes for policies. Then, with a parliament containing members who represent the opinions of their electorate, you can leave the politicians, the ones who know best, to decide who's the best leader, both of their party and the country. A member of parliament should simply be a public voice for their electorate - it's the civil servants who then figure the best way to run the country.

[rmft]

I didn't give credit to the politicians, but to the entire machinery which runs the country. A member of parliament is not, however, simply a public voice to their electorate. A member of parliament can't say "you clever civil servant, my people want zero waiting lists on NHS, no tax, and gardens everyone. Go do it". Or better, they _can_, but they wouldn't be in the parliament for a lot longer. My point is, a politician's understanting of the underlying machinery goes beyond that of the common person (i.e., me), and their political views are a reflection of that understanding. If that understanding is poor, then no clever work force can save the situation.

In the same way, my supervisor leaves all the nitty-gritty details of my science to me, without his understanding of the whole science and of the whole science community as a whole and his guidance, all my hard-work would go to waste. I know the analogy breaks through, but I'm not keen to underestimate the work of a politician. It could be because I have good friends who are now politicans and I _know_ work their arse off to implementent their vision in the community they run, in the way they think it's best (which in turn was broadly reflected in the policies of their parties).

Voters should, and do, vote for policies, and they should understand how these policies will affect them - I would never say otherwise. But, many times you have one party saying "Policy A will lead to B" and another one saying "Policy A will lead to C". And my point was that trying to understand which one was more correct is many times beyond the abilities of the common person. And to that I don't really have an answer..

[zexpe]

I think we're tending to agree. To compare the relationship between a physicist and their supervisor to that of politician and a civil servant is misleading. For how often do you see former army generals as ministers for defense, prize-winning economists as ministers of finance, doctors as ministers for health. The MPs must have an understanding of the field they manage, but they always rely upon the information that their civil servants tell them. The decision is then made based on the politician's policies: "I, or my party, is in favour of this policy. How, my civil servant, can I achieve that?". The policies are plain and simple. The details of the implementation are complex. The average voter can and should understand the policy and what the politicians wants to achieve. Everyone who votes should know every candidate's aims and ambitions. As it stands I don't even know how to find the list of independents standing for my constituency let alone what their motivations are!

It also annoys me that Labour's election leaflets just simply said - Lib Dems and SNP will cost the average family £913 more a year - and left it at that. No explanation as to why, nor what Labours policies were! OK, so it's complicated, but there must be a reason why Lib Dems/SNP think this is a good thing!