There has never been a civil war in a country that uses PR? You don’t have to look very far to see that statement is inaccurate. Northern Ireland had numerous elections during the Troubles under PR. The Irish Civil War started immediately after the PR election of 1922.
OK - I should have said settled countries with PR have never deteriorated into civil war in the way countries with majoritarian systems have. The 1922 election happened in an already highly febrile environment where war was already likely.
Fair enough, but I would gently suggest that you are giving PR too much credit. In a deeply divided country with a febrile political atmosphere, it matters not a jot whether there is a majoritarian or PR political system. One thinks of the 1935 Czechoslovak general election, won by the Sudetan German Party under PR, who then essentially invited Nazi Germany to invade the country. Nobody who lived through the Troubles in Northern Ireland could believe that PR (as opposed to one person one vote, and an end to constituency gerrymandering) made any difference whatsoever to the conditions of political violence which existed then, and which may well return after more than two decades of PR elections to the NI Assembly.
Re: "We all have a natural instinct is to defend against criticisms of long held views. Even if they seem pretty convincing we feel there must be a reason they’re wrong."
This is Chesterton's Fence at the personal level. Its a lot easier to recall a conclusion than all the evidence for and against it. If you think Former You was reasonably thoughtful and well-informed, why would you reject one of Former You's conclusions until you had fully re-created the reasoning behind it?
A good piece. One thought: people often, I believe, don't change their minds because those of a different view don't make an express effort to persuade. It isn't often that one sees a politician saying something on the lines of: I understand why you supported X last time, but here are some good reasons ( facts as well as arguments) for seeing things differently this time. I concede that politicians might have a better understanding than me of what works in gathering support; but who knows
Interesting post, thank you. As regards COVID 19 it seems you are not aware that in 2020 they rebranded the 'flu which is why ‘flu almost disappeared from the statistics to be replaced by COVID 19.
Rebranding is standard practice in business when sales are falling and has occurred before with the other previous ‘flu outbreaks.
As a consequence those who have COVID vaccines and the ‘flu shots are getting a double dose which is good for big pharma’s bottom line.
COVID vaccines will not kill everybody as this would kill the goose that lays the golden egg. However, they do cause harm and sometimes death as vaccines always have.
Problem is, then you have to have *much* bigger consituencies, or a lot more MPs.
I strongly disapprove of party-list systems, and also multi-member constituencies. I think I favour instead much more devolution: proper regional government throughout the UK, perhaps with MMCs for those regional governments. Devolved governments might send delegates to some kind of national convention. I don't know, but I'm sure that a unitary whole-UK government elected on FPTP is a horrible mess.
Genuinely interesting. I can’t think of a single policy position on which I’ve changed my mind in decades. I wonder if that’s because my politics are derived from a deep-seated ideological position rather than approaching policies as abstract policy solutions? I have done a fair bit of reading around anti-semitism recently and would probably say I have a better understanding of other peoples’ views, if that counts?
I have changed my view on tuition fees. I believed the 2003 introduction at £3k would make universities more focused on teaching and the student experience. It did not (and the 2010 hike to £9k was a disaster). But like you I still think it was a necessary change. Just deeply disappointing that it didn’t change universities’ thinking.
Enjoyed the piece Sam. One thing I would add, that Julia Galef has pointed out before, is that people often lack an incentive to change their minds. There are more gains in the short term for us to dig our heals in and use our energy to follow directionally motivated reasoning than holding off on an opinion until we've engaged in some more balanced thinking. There’s a fantastic YouTube video that Julia posted describing some short but useful ideas that help people to explicitly want to change their minds: https://youtu.be/fLG0kkgnRkc. Among them - reframing the argument as a collaboration, rather than a win-lose debate, can make it easier to change ones mind by making accuracy (rather than “victory”) the main aim. Or redirecting the competitive instinct; if somebody's belief is more rational/objective/correct than yours, you get to "steal" it and use it elsewhere.
Thanks Jack - yes I think that's right. When I'm trying to persuade I often try to do that - it's almost impossible to change someone's mind once it's become a debate in which backing down carries some sort of embarrasment. On the final point - I think seeing accuracy as your goal is a good way to train your brain to want to change its mind. It's one reason I do a lot of predictions.
Public opinion can change, sometimes led by elites or respected figures. The current two big changes are the lowering of "law & order" and "defence" as a priority issues. It can also remain remarkably unchanged, for some that is the absence of capital punishment. The current concern, with a dollop of fear, is COVID and the NHS. Will the NHS continue to be regarded as "golden" or the only religion we have?
There has never been a civil war in a country that uses PR? You don’t have to look very far to see that statement is inaccurate. Northern Ireland had numerous elections during the Troubles under PR. The Irish Civil War started immediately after the PR election of 1922.
OK - I should have said settled countries with PR have never deteriorated into civil war in the way countries with majoritarian systems have. The 1922 election happened in an already highly febrile environment where war was already likely.
Fair enough, but I would gently suggest that you are giving PR too much credit. In a deeply divided country with a febrile political atmosphere, it matters not a jot whether there is a majoritarian or PR political system. One thinks of the 1935 Czechoslovak general election, won by the Sudetan German Party under PR, who then essentially invited Nazi Germany to invade the country. Nobody who lived through the Troubles in Northern Ireland could believe that PR (as opposed to one person one vote, and an end to constituency gerrymandering) made any difference whatsoever to the conditions of political violence which existed then, and which may well return after more than two decades of PR elections to the NI Assembly.
Re: "We all have a natural instinct is to defend against criticisms of long held views. Even if they seem pretty convincing we feel there must be a reason they’re wrong."
This is Chesterton's Fence at the personal level. Its a lot easier to recall a conclusion than all the evidence for and against it. If you think Former You was reasonably thoughtful and well-informed, why would you reject one of Former You's conclusions until you had fully re-created the reasoning behind it?
A good piece. One thought: people often, I believe, don't change their minds because those of a different view don't make an express effort to persuade. It isn't often that one sees a politician saying something on the lines of: I understand why you supported X last time, but here are some good reasons ( facts as well as arguments) for seeing things differently this time. I concede that politicians might have a better understanding than me of what works in gathering support; but who knows
Interesting post, thank you. As regards COVID 19 it seems you are not aware that in 2020 they rebranded the 'flu which is why ‘flu almost disappeared from the statistics to be replaced by COVID 19.
Rebranding is standard practice in business when sales are falling and has occurred before with the other previous ‘flu outbreaks.
As a consequence those who have COVID vaccines and the ‘flu shots are getting a double dose which is good for big pharma’s bottom line.
COVID vaccines will not kill everybody as this would kill the goose that lays the golden egg. However, they do cause harm and sometimes death as vaccines always have.
> multi-member constituencies
Problem is, then you have to have *much* bigger consituencies, or a lot more MPs.
I strongly disapprove of party-list systems, and also multi-member constituencies. I think I favour instead much more devolution: proper regional government throughout the UK, perhaps with MMCs for those regional governments. Devolved governments might send delegates to some kind of national convention. I don't know, but I'm sure that a unitary whole-UK government elected on FPTP is a horrible mess.
Genuinely interesting. I can’t think of a single policy position on which I’ve changed my mind in decades. I wonder if that’s because my politics are derived from a deep-seated ideological position rather than approaching policies as abstract policy solutions? I have done a fair bit of reading around anti-semitism recently and would probably say I have a better understanding of other peoples’ views, if that counts?
I have changed my view on tuition fees. I believed the 2003 introduction at £3k would make universities more focused on teaching and the student experience. It did not (and the 2010 hike to £9k was a disaster). But like you I still think it was a necessary change. Just deeply disappointing that it didn’t change universities’ thinking.
Enjoyed the piece Sam. One thing I would add, that Julia Galef has pointed out before, is that people often lack an incentive to change their minds. There are more gains in the short term for us to dig our heals in and use our energy to follow directionally motivated reasoning than holding off on an opinion until we've engaged in some more balanced thinking. There’s a fantastic YouTube video that Julia posted describing some short but useful ideas that help people to explicitly want to change their minds: https://youtu.be/fLG0kkgnRkc. Among them - reframing the argument as a collaboration, rather than a win-lose debate, can make it easier to change ones mind by making accuracy (rather than “victory”) the main aim. Or redirecting the competitive instinct; if somebody's belief is more rational/objective/correct than yours, you get to "steal" it and use it elsewhere.
Thanks Jack - yes I think that's right. When I'm trying to persuade I often try to do that - it's almost impossible to change someone's mind once it's become a debate in which backing down carries some sort of embarrasment. On the final point - I think seeing accuracy as your goal is a good way to train your brain to want to change its mind. It's one reason I do a lot of predictions.
And just briefly on electoral systems, I have always believed that first past the post was better and I think the following link is the best argument for it (https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2016/01/31/from-the-archives-the-open-society-and-its-enemies-revisited), but having read this blog post, I have reduced the extent to which I believe FPTP to be superior.
Public opinion can change, sometimes led by elites or respected figures. The current two big changes are the lowering of "law & order" and "defence" as a priority issues. It can also remain remarkably unchanged, for some that is the absence of capital punishment. The current concern, with a dollop of fear, is COVID and the NHS. Will the NHS continue to be regarded as "golden" or the only religion we have?
Eloquent as usual and now I have to think about thinking!