“Most see what's good for them” was the bluntest diagnosis in a room that voted No, 170 votes to 89. The result was less a rejection of democracy than a prosecution of the voter: confidence in individual judgement ran into suspicion of tribal habit, bad information and narrow self-interest.
The floor’s most-respected No case argued that many people take little interest in politics while “social media has largely supplanted traditional news”. Other No voices blamed voters who “default to family history”, alongside media distortion, weak critical-thinking education and the instinct to choose the familiar rosette.
Yes voters answered that astuteness should not be confused with perfect information or agreement. “The majority of people are astute enough,” said one, while another invoked “the wisdom of crowds is a real phenomenon”; others pointed to voter apathy, least-worst choices and the danger of letting supposed experts decide what is in everyone else’s interests.
The two sides often talked past each other. No treated loyalty as evidence of political inertia; Yes treated the distrust of voters as a greater threat to democracy than their mistakes, insisting that politicians are no more perfectly rational and that public judgement is safer than concentrated power. The strongest Yes arguments earned respect, but the wider mood was captured by voters who saw party allegiance, misleading media and personal interest overpowering long-term calculation.
That leaves a verdict about trust as much as astuteness: the platform’s voters were unconvinced that changing allegiances necessarily means thinking more clearly. The chamber did not dismiss democracy; it questioned the judgement democracy is being asked to rely on.
16 Opinions
There is a tendency to vote as the parents and grandparents did, some don't like change, can't see the point in changing anything, as they are doing well. The media has in recent years, been a lot more vocal in stirring things up, knee jerk reactions to things they don't properly investigate. Some take this as gospel and vote accordingly, others don't see how voting makes a difference. We need truth and honesty in politics, to encourage informed voting.
Most see what's good for them ,not for the whole!
I’d politely suggest that once we start assuming that people don’t understand what they’re voting for, or that they aren’t voting in their own interests, we move towards a rather dangerous conception of democracy. It risks becoming a form of “dictatorial democracy”, where people are told how they should vote based on what others believe is in their best interests, rather than trusting individuals to make their own political choices.
I forever come up against the attitude of, "do not try and change my mind with facts and reasoning" for blind party allegience. It has waivered for the SNP but i see it with those voting for the main red and blue. I am not convined the voter turnout is entirely accurate. I live accross from a polling station and the numbers stated were far in excess of the numbers i seen enter and exit the building.
The wisdom of crowds is a real phenomenon. I believe people are astute individually but even if you don't think so, they are astute collectively. That's why democracy works better than every other system. Elitist hate that.
Realistically this audience is probably a minority. We are interested in politics & wider uk / world issues. Sadly, we believe that logically arguing our case, people listen & we hope, be influenced by strength of argument. Sadly not! (see Dunning-Kruger effect and MAGA in particular!) Sadly, majority of voters lazily default to family history or even their instinct - “he’s a bloke I’d have a pint with” (Boris /Farage) - in USA even worse, he’s a great businessman on TV.
The majority of people are astute enough. The problem lies with whether we feel we can vote in our best interests. These days people are often voting for the least worst option, not a party they really want and they think represents their interests. Many choose not to vote at all. Voter apathy has increased as people have become politically disenfranchised.
NO I could take a trained chimpanzee to where I used to live, stick a red rosette on it & get the chimp elected. I could take the same chimp down to where my parents used to live, change the rosette to blue & get it elected again! I'd suggest that if that doesn't already also applies to a turquoise & green rosette yet, it won't be long before it does.
Politics is always a point of view, mood at any given time based on the news, personal self intrest etc. Whats is good for one person may look like, but may not align with another person. No one knows anyone 100% and what they reallywant and need. Lets leave it to a public vote good and bad.
"People are too stupid (especially on complex matters)". Guess what, politicians are too. "People do not take an active interest in politics", maybe because their votes in vast majority do not matter and party manifestos are mostly ignored after GE. But, it is easier to corrupt majority of parliament than majority of electorate. But. nobody ever will be a perfect representation of me. Direct democracy is the way ahead.