So its ignorance at an individual level, but when multiplied to the masses this multiplied ignorance suddenly becomes informed?


Actually the word 'informed' means being armed with more information. The extrapolation to 'set in views' is unsubstantiated


The concept of 'compulsory' is anathema to democracy. All the arguments to justify it are simply intellectually fallacious red herrings.


No-one holds a gun to a potential voter's head forcing them to stay away from the poll booth
No-one holds a gun to a potential voter's head forcing them to not look at media & academic websites to be informed

In short, yes - this is a well established phenomenon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd



Well, you aren't forced to vote, just turn up and get your name signed off. My arguments in favour of compulsory voting are practical, not philosophical.



That may be true, I am not debating the ability of people to vote (although in the US there is a long history of using 'voter ID' laws to stop black people from voting).

My point is that the universal effect of voluntary voting is that minorities vote less. That is just a fact, regardless of causation or reasoning.

You have misapplied the concept - you don't average out ignorance to wisdom. You average out, or aggregate, ignorance to ignorance
Additionally, to be a little bit argumentatively lazy on my part, you are disputing a Professor who has researched & written on the issue





That's being forced to do something, through threat of fine. A null/donkey vote is still a vote, of sorts




It confirms laziness, as mentioned previously, justified by any number of unsubstantiated 'excuses'

I'm the same but since I'm a stingey bastard I drew my own box and voted for Batman :lol:

:lol:

I'd forget about making my repayments and end up paying for the next election on my own :lol:

I voted for Kodos

What a noble and enlightened soul you are.

I'd like to see more circumstances such as occurred in the seat of Indi, where an independent member was urged to run by the public rather than their own interests (what started out as a grass root survey to determine what members wanted from their representatives to do for them in parliament, turned into a key member of that survey team being encouraged to run for parliament and getting elected)!

To be fair, your professor is one person. Wisdom of the Crowd as a concept has existed since Aristotle. So I'll stick with that theory.



Of course it is. My point was just that you are not forced to actually cast a vote, null, donkey, or otherwise.



Does it really? Or is it more indicative of disenfranchisement? If it was just laziness, why are minority groups and youth over-represented as non voters within voluntary voting systems?

You do realise that it is the right (including the Murdoch media empire which you constantly criticise) that are most in favour of voluntary voting as it will advantage right wing parties? You do realise that, don't you?

The other point is that voluntary voting systems mean much higher spending by political parties. They have to not only persuade you to vote for them, but persuade you to vote at all! This will increase the influence of vested interests, who fund this higher spending.

Edited by AzzaMarch: 21/3/2016 02:43:38 PM

You have fallacious reasoning known as argumentum ad populum. No disrespect, but most people who haven't done philosophy or science commit this
In simple terms, if I'm going for heart surgery I'll get the opinion of a heart surgeon, not a million non-heart surgeons.


Yes & as a person who is forever frustrated with how little effort people put into critically thinking about issues, its something I have to live with

Big deal. He had to call it by September anyway

It's not that people put in little effort, it's just that they are busy working and providing for their families. Most people don't have time to spend hours every night scrutinising government policy, so they listen to both sides of the argument and go for the one that "feels" most right. I'd argue that someone who makes a tangible contribution to society and pays tax is far more deserving of a vote than the dilettantes who dick around all day reading articles and books so they can impress themselves with how knowledgeable they are.

No I don't - there are a ton of studies and research explaining what types of decisions crowd knowledge works best for. I am basing my opinion on the existence of a huge body of research that has been looking at the issue for millennia.

The heart surgeon analogy is extremely poor. Voting generally involves a binary choice, or a limited number of options available from which one must be chosen.

That is the precise type of decision structure for which 'the knowledge of the crowd' works best for.

Big deal? The timing isn't what is the big deal, its the fact that it is a double dissolution election. That IS a big deal.

Especially if the Libs win the election - they will be able to pass a heap of their legislation in the joint sitting session that will come post-election.

The Senate quota halves in a DD election as well - opens the Senate up to an unknown structure, especially with the new voting laws passed.

There may well have been a body of research for millennia, but compared to modern day analysis it is superficial by contrast, moreso when compared to the rigour of academia.
Its also worth noting that the 'findings' on swinging voters also comes from internal party research


Actually, its very pertinent. Voting is only 'binary' on the surface. It is complex when informing oneself of the nuances & multitude of issues that need to be investigated to arrive at said vote.
The aggregation of the masses, really only matters for distribution of votes (& the distribution curve that goes with it). That isn't reflecting the critical thinking of the individual behind the vote

There is also a tonne of modern day research as well.



Are you thick? That is precisely the point I am making. You have actually provided the definition of the wisdom of the crowd. Let me use your own words:




That is what the wisdom of the crowd is! At an individual level, swinging voters may be ignorant, and only paying superficial attention. But by aggregating the opinions of a vast, diverse group, the conclusion this group of superficially engaged individuals come to is actually valid.

I'm surprised no one's mentioned that Morrison was out there on Radio talking up a May 10 budget less than an hour before Turnbull declaring it for May the 3rd. Although I guess we've come to expect this from such a chaotic Government.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-turnbull-is-running-on-my-governments-record-tony-abbott-20160321-gnnrtv.html

:oops: :oops: :oops:

I would be interested on the research, if its specifically about swinging voters. The Professor I refer to mentioned that there is a dearth of research on the issue......:idea:




As I have never had an IQ test, our current best objective measure of one's 'thickness', I could be.
That said, considering I was employed by a university to tutor classes of Honours year students in multivariate statistics & mark papers on their 10,000 word research project thesis proposals, the evidence would tend to suggest otherwise, comparatively speaking.






As I have stated before you have misapplied the concept.
If you draw a sample of an ignorant subject, it is still coming from an ignorant population. Aggregating individual samples of ignorant subjects does not aggregate to an informed population. All you will end up getting is an average of ignorance, that distributes from highly ignorant to less ignorant. But its all still ignorant.
As also mentioned previously, argumentum ad populum - just because most people (or in this case the average of a large number) believe something to be, does not make it so.

If you like I could use an example with the 3 main parties in Australia (so long as you're willing to wade through the backlash of posts that will label me 'arrogant', 'elitist', etc as a result of the blunt example I will provide)

Yep on ABC site as well. Incredible hypocrisy of this government; they are repeating the Labor government with the leadership change & destabilisation. Will Abbott unseat Turnbull circa 2018?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-22/abbott-says-turnbull-seeking-election-on-his-policies/7265152

Things looking average for the Libs - Morgan Poll now has Labor in front 50.5 to 49.5 two party preferred

How could anyone vote for Shorten?

The liberals are legit shooting themselves in the foot. All they had to do was not be Bill Shorten/completely incompetent to win.

Probably because he does more than arm waving, like Turnbull

The point is that you are getting the range of views of a diverse population, which includes a grouping of ignorant, or superficially engaged, swinging voters. If you just had a group of swinging voters you could potentially have an argument, but that is not how our system works. We have electorates that are made up of diverse population groups.

If you had voluntary voting you would actually reduce the diversity of the electorate.

I would contrast our way of viewing this issue as you being Plato, and me being Machiavelli. Your starting point is how things should be - "ignorant people shouldn't be forced to vote" etc. My starting point is how the world exists, and what practical changes will occur - "bringing in voluntary voting reduces the diversity of the electorate, and favours the wealthy and the old".

Enjoy living in your ivory tower. I will keep living in the real world.

This is unfortunately been a common theme in Australian politics for a while now. It is not so much that people vote FOR parties, but vote against parties.

If you move beyond personality politics, you will find the answer to your question.

The ALP have actually released a raft of policies, much more than any opposition usually does this far ahead of an election. They have therefore been able to have policy debates on their terms - negative gearing etc.

The Libs have had a lot of internal debates, and back and forth arguments, floating policies (eg GST rise) then retracting them in the face of resistance. They are actually acting like an opposition.

People liked Turnbull because he seemed like a moderate. But because of the strength of the conservative faction within the Libs, he hasn't moderated any of the conservative policies (marriage equality plebiscite) and has even fed the conservatives more policies to keep them onside (Safe Schools change).

Of course, plenty may change between now and election time. But as it is, the ALP are ahead on the policy front (in terms of having a coherent range of policies, whether you agree with them or not).

By releasing policies and driving the media narrative, the ALP has successfully shifted focus from leadership (Shorten v Turnbull as individuals is their weakness) to policy debate (their strength because they are unified here, whereas the libs are internally split).

That has always been true. Governments have always been punished, or people have thought "its time to give the other guys a go".

All an opposition can really do is ensure they are seen as a viable alternative - a "safe pair of hands".

Edited by AzzaMarch: 22/3/2016 02:30:44 PM

An opposition could offer great solutions, policies, and vision ... but for too long they have simply been naysayers or focus campaigns on the faults of government. I thought Rudd's original campaign was one of the most recent examples I can think where they actually went in with such an approach (which could have had something to do with Howard's government having stagnated after being in power for so long, so wasn't that hard to really bring forth alternatives).

How so?

He doesn't fill me with confidence at all.

-PB

That only really happened with Abbott.

The ALP under Shorten have released heaps of policies. More than Rudd did in the lead up to the 2007 election.

But, as you pointed out, even with Rudd it was more about the "it's time" factor working against Howard than anything else.

What Rudd did do was ensure the ALP was seen as a viable alternative. Shorten has been doing this as well by being serious about policy.

Edited by AzzaMarch: 22/3/2016 03:12:18 PM

Therein lies the problem. People not policies. Regardless its Turnbull, by contrast to Shorten, who has been doing all the dithering, but his persona acts as the smokescreen. I can't recall an opposition releasing so many policies, outside of an election campaign.
Don't forget what an unmitigated long term financial disaster 'Mr Innovation' Turnbull has foisted on us with the second rate NBN - its utterly disgusting that simply to be 'not Labor's (far superior) NBN' we have copped years worth of delays for infrastructure that will need replacing as soon as its completed.
It is incredibly sad that so many people are comfortable that a party can so callously waste tens of billions of dollars purely for a marketing 'point of difference' & still be consider 'the better economic managers'.
IIRC Labor are going to the election with the intent to go back to full fibre to the premises NBN. This will be ballsy, as the Libs will label it as waste saying 'see, Labor hasn't changed they are economic incompetents', when it is the Libs that are the economic incompetents. The problem is people's inability to grasp things beyond an electoral cycle, that they will probably accept the slogans, even though in the long term the Libs are costing us alot more (a bit like global warming - people don't care because the effects are too distant & not acute enough, so they can't grasp it).
Like the second rate NBN, Turnbull for the Libs is still lipstick on a pig