Its us that didnt vote Brexit & Trump who may be deluded???

 

We are in an incredibly difficult situation to surmount!!

You see, say an unpleasant ex-murderer who killed an employee of his investing company, for not making large enough profits, goes for election against a vanilla politician, and the world watch. We find we don’t like him.
But its us who can and will be critical. The voters have to decide more from a perspective of what is best for the country, weighing up all factors, but weighting them differently. They will be unhappy about bits, but still may see the answer very differently from us.

Now, observers such as us and any who voted for vanilla, believe that we are morally superior, and see anyone who voted for the unpleasant candidate as unpleasant people, maybe stupid too. They didn’t see the situation as we did. If no vote had occurred, or no one voted for him, then all people are the same. It takes people to vote for him to raise us up above them. We are brighter, more moral, and that’s because there was 1 correct answer, ours, as theirs was wrong, lesser, less intelligent, less moral. We have entered a state of righteousness that is artificial. It doesn’t exist without others being judged as wrong and flawed.
We now are unwilling to consider that we may have picked differently if we were voting. We will not be able to consider that some analysed every situation, every route forward, future states and options etc. And saw that that choice was much better for the country and all of our futures, and picked him still. Our new morality is dependent on his voters being immoral and stupid.
We are on top. Why look up? no one can be there, right?
Would we find another explanation if we did look up? They shouldnt be up there. They are just deluded, perhaps?
We are stuck in our own trap!  And it applies to all,  The BBC find the objectionable people it only believes exist.  It’s all anti-immigrant.  Proud racists are easy to find,  when they want to be, and are all searched for.

Now Brexit voters  know hiding is wise, because, they will never persuade anyone they are something that destroys the moral perch of whoever interviews them.  You are pretending it’s about other matters, but its immigration really.  You are fighting  war you can’t win.   Never has news a society been in such a bubble of fiction.

Advertisements

Dont assume you wouldnt have voted for Trump

Candidate a: Trump
Candidate b: Clinton

Clinton:- vanilla, nothing positive that stands out much but better vanilla than worse, so a tool to prevent candidate a.
so
the result depends on candidate a being seen as better or worse than vanilla(no change) in some way

So, it almost becomes: vote for Trump, or vote against Trump.
We can rule Clinton out, pretty much:-

so:-

Choice: Trump, yes or no?

you have:-
group a, american voters
group b, rest of world

you have:-
group 1, those that are instantly taken with what the rest of us see as racist, sexist, or otherwise objectionable views.

group 2, the remaining majority, who see those things as objectionable, and cant consider voting that way.

Effect 1: There is a circular effect, where the media obviously interview supporters, they are seen by us as stupid, morons, as we expect from supporters of such ignorant and distasteful views from a not very bright person, and our views are reinforced, the media highlight this more and more and so on

Mode 1: judging candidates normally.
Mode 2: judging candidates to vote for.

state a: To start with and for considerably long, group a and b are both in mode 1
State b: group a start entering mode 2 as time progresses.

Effect 2: as time goes on, Americans start to ask themselves a different question to the rest of us, as they enter state b

thinking of early america timeline, and rest of world:-

what does he say that seems at all positive?
why would anyone support someone like that?

close to election:-

its the economy, stupid!?
promote business, and the economy, hopefully
down to earth, remove washington money leakages, make leaner

will his bad ideas get traction anyway?
will a wall really happen anyway?
how much damage can he do in his time anyway?
the bad stuff will be undone by his successor.
nothing really changes anyway,

do nothing, or make changes, and the successful can be kept,
failures removed. It seems better than dont ‘experiment’ at all.
Even if you dont consider him the safest business man, perhaps.

The Non-Populism Delusion

Wiki:- A factor traditionally held to diminish the value of “Populism” as a category has been that, as Margaret Canovan notes in her 1981 study Populism, Populists rarely call themselves “Populists” and usually reject the term when it is applied to them.

So, it is Populist if we didn’t agree with it, and anything described as Populist that I voted for is incorrectly described.   Sounds familiar?

The real common thread that the label of #Populism often causes people to miss, is that of perceived modern democratic deficit, that of a need of better democracy, or rather one that acts as it should and sees the public in the correct way.  This is a growing requirement all the time and is now starting to make a significant change to national elections and views.  Politicians views do not gel with public requirements.  They live in a world where they are exposed to the public enough for people to be able to get a very good view of their philosophies and their psychologies.  We have reached a tipping point where the old politicians rules of avoidance and denial can be seen as not understanding their place as public employees.  Sure, the media try to trip them up, but when the questions are valid and the answers not, it becomes a problem.

The problem is that 1st we need to separate the term into its 2 parts: Being popular/more favoured purely in terms of votes received; and something akin to a craze or trend.
In the 2nd case, if something is a trend or craze, that means that it is explained without needing individual reasoning or argument. If something is popular, it is popular for a reason which we look to identify, but if it is populist, then we are saying that its somewhat without reason apart from just what everyone else is doing. So when we say something is populist, we can mean that it is without any reason or argument that can be made, except trend, but maybe we could mean that it is a little popular too, in which case there may have been some reason why it was popular. Basically, whatever is heavily voted for, whether it wins or loses, is going to be popular, but we don’t say populist, so we really mean the populist end of the popular/populist scope of populist.

It’s rather final as a term, because it allows us to believe that it has little logic driving its behaviour.

Then if the choice with logic isn’t that choice, its likely to be the opposite choice. So the very definition seems to add validity, wisdom, and balance to any opposing argument.

Anyone wishing to argue otherwise, is also arguing that your opinion isn’t the voice of reason that it so conveniently seemed to have become.

#Populism as we mean now, is a psychological trap, probably a sign of missing the real reason.
#Populism is a word allowing you to stroke your own ego. It often means that it had no valid reason except pure fashion, so i picked correctly.
#Populism is so psychologically convenient when not agreeing but of course sense prevailed when you do agree. either way, youre voice of reason!

I voted, but lost, but should have won.
Populism suggests no other real justification.
I voted but the populists won, I tried to save us, despite the illogical mob behaviour prevailing for no real reason, except that of hyping themselves up into a frenzy. if no reason, then i must have picked correctly. so it makes me correct by its use, correct and the voice moral reason despite the foolish masses.

It is a horrendously dangerous term, and causes any attempt to find reason have low expectations initially, and so the populists end up all being racist, or thick, or both, despite the fact that it’s probably not the case at all, and that one or 2 bad apples happened to tar a whole argument because you were already only looking to increase the power of your position by finding a worse reason than that of you original populism reason, which was bad enough in the first place.

What election results tell us

France

UK Referendum

USA Trump

In each case, the result shows people want change.  They want something other than what they see as a system that is only superficially dependent upon them, during elections, but the choices are “all the same”.  What people mean is that after elections, the people’s wishes are not in mirrored by their elected proxy, and it is really is far from what they see as democratic.  The public are a means to an end for most politicians.   They are useful as a tool when they want what the politician wants, to back up their argument, but for the most part are superfluous.

When the public are least likely to agree with a course of action, the more chance they wont be considered worth consulting.  The politicians know this, but don’t see it as necessary.

The public should be represented by their representative, in a way that mirrors how they would decide themselves.  It doesn’t require consultation necessarily always, if the politician does as they know they should really.

BUT, the public may not be able to choose without enough understanding in some cases,  is the argument that some MPs may offer.  In some cases this may be true, and can be fixed easily as you will see.    It also is rather a dangerous argument, as it may make the politician assume they know enough too easily,and become applied always afterwards to other situations.   What we need is a way for them to see what  the public who understand would decide.  It is often easy to assume if someone doesn’t agree that they aren’t up to speed, and so dismiss those that may understand better than yourself.

 

 

Brexit as a moral decision

I love the U.K. and I see the E.U. as very important . I hoped that voting leave would cause the E.U. to take a look at why. I believed that if we had to leave to get it to fix itself then it was worth the sacrifice. It looked like it may, but now […]

I love the U.K. and I see the E.U. as very important .

I hoped that voting leave would cause the E.U. to take a look at why.

I believed that if we had to leave to get it to fix itself then it was worth the sacrifice.

It looked like it may, but now it has turned to fear which is causing the opposite.

It makes me angry when remain voters assume that I did this because of immigration, that their reasons were somehow better or more justified than mine, because they really weren’t.  I believe we can survive and thrive out of the E.U., but not as we are going, as ministers don’t quite get it.

I believe that us leaving is a price worth paying to cause the E.U. to fix itself, but im afraid it hasn’t helped.

I wish the vote was seen as not one person voting leave and one stay, but as the countries unhappiness with aspects of the E.U., its reservations about the direction  of the E.U. and yet  hope for it. the countries almost unified percentages showing agreement across the whole of the U.K..

The media (i watch the BBC)  is immoral and hugely damaging  at best, and should think first a lot more.

Even Theresa May is talking of differences.

my writing is falling apart…note to self, fix….never time to as more stuff comes…arrggghh

By Jim Cook of UK ThinkTank .com

Expectation in Brexit and US Election was the real killer!

  1. Whatever they do, they can’t change the result, but maybe they want to send a message that they shouldn’t take it for granted and not to get to complacent, knowing it was safe to do so.
  2. Is it necessary to vote at all if voting for the inevitable anyway, as it is
  3. inevitable?

So those supporting the expected winner either vote for the opposite, or not at all!!

Have a look at the LATimes Polls.  These show that expectation is a dangerous thing:- (From http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/)

Who do you think will win?

capture

Who would you vote for?

We ask voters what the chance is that they will vote for Trump, Clinton or someone else, using a 0-100 scale. The overall level of support for each candidate reflects the weighted average of those responses.

capture2

LA Times usc-presidential-poll-dashboard

By Jim Cook of UK ThinkTank .com

 

Bad Analysts Beat Good

Would you hire an analyst who predicted Brexit and Trump?chart_249x167

Or one that got it wrong, but understandably so from the polls?

How about one who didn’t make any predictions until the day before each, and then put their neck on the line and got it right?

An analyst goes with the probabilities and polls and social effects.

But the day before each, I’d like to explain why an analyst should have got it right both times.

With Brexit, the polls flipped on a daily basis before the vote.  People backed off when they felt the responsibility of their voting, and that leave may happen, playing it safe.  The day before, the polls ended on Stay.  It seemed likely that people would continue their pattern and vote leave, after realising it was unlikely again, and they did.

With Trump, there was more to it(as there was with Brexit actually), but the polls reached a point just short of 50:50, but nearer than ever, and following Brexit thinking, as there was no more campaigning to influence things, Trump could only improve upon that as people saw it as unlikely and their priorities changed in their minds from polling thinking to a state that had been improving his   ratings as the time got closer and other considerations became involved.  From a long time before, or a foreign perspective, the least controversial is always best, but you aren’t thinking about what is best for your country and that can only improve the alternatives chances, and this will rise over time and shoot up a little more come actual voting.  He could only have done better, and as he was predicted to lose by the polls, there was no pull back by anyone thinking that if they got it wrong they would be responsible, and so change is always more likely than before.

Both involved many types of voters with falling into many groups and much more complicated than this explanation.

I made a prediction for both the day before and got both correct.  I wouldn’t have before, because it wasnt possible to make the right choice before that without making the least probable choice and so being bad at your job.

Now analysts havent self corrected properly, and explain what happened incorrectly from a simplistic perspective, biased from the view that madness won out and so defied logic, as it keeps them feeling good analysts.  So they simplify the voters and make them self-destructive badly educated voters, rather than look into the various voters that interacted and their opinions and perceptions.  There are an amazing amount of interesting factors that were involved that provide a lot of insight into future election success and failure and do’s and don’t, once you understand this subject properly.

James Cook UKThinkTank.com