Referendum UK

[Paul22118]

If we were to have areferendum tomorrow on the following how do you think the results as a percentage would come out.

1. Bring back hanging for murder (judge to make decision, appeal to Sovereign)
2. Leave the European Union
3. Join the Euro currency
4. Give Scotland to the Scots.
5. Seriously restrict all immigration.

For me, Yes, no, no, yes,yes.
What do you think.

[Paul22118]

New Judge has actually hit the point I was trying to make. That parliamentarians are elected by us to represent our views in a democratic manner, but rarely do so.
My referendum thought poses a thought, that if there were to be a referendum for any reason, such as last week, parliament could, by adding some questions get a full and clear view of the wishes of the people - thick or otherwise. They could then legislate acordingly. It won't happen of course because the Hon Members believe they know better than us plebs. I really think that they do. Perhaps mandatory voting would give an even more clear flavour of opinion. Now there's a thought.

[rojash]

"So you assume, then, that “intelligence” (leaving aside the problem of how you might measure it) is distributed unevenly throughout the population. "

No, I don't. Most measures of intelligence result in a bell curve distribution. This means that most people are of average intelligence. But people of average intelligence don't usually end up running companies, making significant developments and discoveries, etc. So (and I know that IQ can be measured in different ways, but I'm using it as a convenience here) if you accept that brighter people have an IQ of (say) 115 and above, then the majority of people will fall into the "not so bright" category.

I don't know of any successful businesses where the shareholders get a significant say in the minutiae of running of the business, and I don't see why a a country should be any different in that respect.

[BAKERS DOZEN]

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

[Ellipsis]

It's interesting to consider that technology (electronic voting) could, within say 30 years, allow secure, instant referendums on a pretty much anything.

Theoretically we could reach the point where we could dump MPs altogether for the executive, and just preserve them for the legislature. Would that make a better parliament?

[JimT]

I love how not wanting to kill people is referred to as being 'liberal'.

[JimT]

kinell - re Scotland - why "good riddance"?

[New Judge]

I think most people (intelligent or not) would agree that there is quite a difference in the relationship between a company and its shareholders and that between an (allegedly) democratic state and its citizens, rojash. Shareholders do not have to buy shares in the first place and can sell them at any time they wish. Additionally, major aspects of shareholders’ lives are usually not dictated by the company in which they own shares. Citizens are not in a position to “sell up” (unless they consider emigrating) and they have almost all major aspects of their lives controlled by the State. I’ll try to put it as kindly as I can so I’ll just suggest that your argument is incongruous

Just to be pedantic, the normal distribution you describe and which you suggest is a feature of intelligence does not mean that “the majority of people will fall into the "not so bright" category”. On the contrary it means that 50% of them will demonstrate intelligence above average and 50% will fall below. Most of them (95%, in fact) will fall in the section two Standard Deviations either side of the average.

Anyway, that really does not matter. Democratic government should reflect the wishes of as many of the electorate as possible: young and old; rich and poor; black and white, intelligent and not so gifted. An unfortunate side effect of proper democracy is few people always get everything they want. But all people are entitled to have their wishes canvassed and facilitated where possible. They should certainly not have to pass an intelligence threshold before their views are considered valid.