Printable View
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...n-brexit-vote?
Yeah, more Guardian, but seems like the Govt is taking it seriously.
What might happen if the outcome of the Brexit vote and the much vaunted notion that 'the people have spoken' was seen to be a supposed sham, I wonder?
Where might all this be heading?
Even if they did influence , I just imagine taking any notice of a tweet , surely you vote with your own brain, not vote on sone random social media comment ,or am I missing something .
Next thing we will get is the general election was influenced by the same, and that will cross over with the opinion that Labour were successful In using the very same medium .
There is way more to it than that TBH. Have a search - plenty of info out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
The 'ability' to change outcomes is established TBH, it's more a case of 'where was it deployed, how much of it, by whom, for what reason and did it make an appreciable/measurable difference.
Thanks for that interview. I'm actually surprised at how badly that RT journalist was, to begin with especially he had nothing. He did warm up a bit later.
Yes, you're missing something. It's more sophisticated than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
Plenty of people are rooted in their beliefs, in this case either leave or remain. But you target the floating voters, that's what has happened in General Elections for decades - invest your resources where it will make a difference. There's no point trying to win a safe seat.
Once you get hold of the data trail that people leave on the web, social media and web history, then you can find the susceptible ones and target them. If 80% of the 'news' they see is slanted one way, and it's backed up by bots seemingly making it the majority opinion, then these people will likely be motivated to use their vote this way. And they'll share the stories with just one click; now the stories are coming from people they trust.
There are rules that political parties and UK media have to follow during election campaigns. Those rules don't affect groups outside the UK, so yes GEs can certainly be affected.
From that interview you would think that Britain was harmonious, and there was no division originating from within.
It's the system that is wrong, we should have PR, not left v right and blue v red. This is what divides us instead of uniting us.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
How does PR work for a yes/no vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
Have a referendum :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
How does PR/referendum stop outside interference and targetting of voters?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
Educate the citizens properly and these type of issues will have no effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Where does PR come into this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
An efficient way to run the country away from party donors, lobbyists, special interest groups, and people who believe everything the BBC have to say :biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Could you help me understand how PR will eliminate those things and stop outside influences?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
PR ensures that the parties would have to appeal to their core supporters, rather than a small number of so called 'swing voters' in marginal seats.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Then we could all work together instead of having the current pantomime system of government that panders to outside interests.
Also having people working together will result in more creative solutions and move away from detrimental ideologies.
Surely they would still go for the undecideds, it would just be the undecideds nationally rather than regionally. In other words, exactly what happened in the referendum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales