Try doing a degree in politics, full of them. Being a centre-right person on a politics degree is akin to growing a stamp shaped moustache and a bad side parting.
"All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher." - Ambrose Bierce
Langeveldt: I of course blame their parents.. and unchecked immigration!
GingerFurball: He's Austrian, they tend to produce the odd ****ed up individual
Burgey: Be careful dealing with neighbours whose cars don't have wheels but whose houses do.
Uppercut: Maybe I just need better strippers
Half the stuff they teach you at school is useless.
We should be learning more real life skills, things we will have to do after school. Half the Maths we will never do again. It's stupid.
True, you may never use them again, but it doesnt make it redundant knowledge. It is still used in the 'real world', just not by most people. the point of schooling is to set you up to do whatever you like in life, so can't just ignore large swathes thinking 'ah well, he's gonna be a bin man anyway'... you'll lose your right to choose your own future then. Of course you might know what you want to do, doesnt mean you'll achieve it, or change your mind.... God knows i've done so enough times since I was 16.... Thanks to what i'd originally deamed useless infomation, i've managed to change from wanting to train as a pilot (using Maths/physics), through an IT degree, onto an arts degree, into the civil service, now looking at going back full circle to the maths education and into more accounting/finance area's. Couldn't have done half those moves without basic knowledge i'd picked up between 14 and 18, and never at any point been using more than half that knowledge, though overall used the lot in the space of about 7 years. So don't knock it, it does come in quite handy....... Even if its just in a pub quiz
Some of them are great fun though I have to admit, one guy I knew pretty well acted and talked just like an amiable 65 year old toff with an MCC tie on but just happened to be 21.
Last edited by Pothas; 28-04-2010 at 07:26 PM.
If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits
West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma
Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)
Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net
Haha well played.
Ill type up some notes to hopefully provide some, I think fascinating, insight from a US perspective (which is a close relative of Britain) about what makes people vote a certain way. EDIT- Done, see below
Many people will vote for a candidate without putting too much attention on party or policies. They don't have time for issues or studying the candidates anymore, but still people want to vote and do their part. But then they get to the booth and realize they donít know anything the candidates.
It depends on the person. There are those people that just vote for a party. The die hards do exactly that
There are three layers of voters:
- Ideologues who vote straight party line
- Concerned citizens who have their pet issue or study all the issues and vote on who represents their position, regardless of party
- And the masses who vote because their dad told them that every good American does, but is late for work and has the kids sitting out front of the voting location in the minivan (his example)
Now the 3rd group are the people that may vote on how someone looks but all their research (he is experienced in voter psychology) shows it goes more on the name (how it sounds), name recognition (how well know and branded the name is) and the emotions campaign people can stir up.
The interesting thing is that the key point for the 3rd group has little to do with policies but how the name is put forward and the colors used.
An important tool he mentioned was campaign signs. I.e. the things that are shown everywhere. They are shown on billboards, in peoples windows, bumper stickers, in peoples gardens etc. They seldom, if ever, mention what party the person represents. This is because at the 3rd level (as we defined earlier) party and politics isnít as important as name value. Advertising a party affiliation is more likely to put people off and, as strange as it sounds, people will vote for a name they know well and like the visuals of even if they know little about them or their politics. So itís beneficial to the candidate to present themselves but not what or who they stand for. People will walk into vote and vote for a guy they like the sound of but know little about. As my friend said "There just isnít the time for most people to find out about the candidates so the fight is to get their immediate attention and keep your candidates name in their head when they walk into the voting booth." Just as importantly, they should do nothing to turn a voter off and parties have strong emotions and feelings attached to their names.
My friend suggested that I look at some random politicians to see this in action and so I did. I chose 3 politicians relevant to me at 3 different levels of US government and I was surprised with what I saw and how accurate my friend was.
Gavin Newsom, Democrat Mayor of San Francisco, my city of residence
John McCain, Republican running for Senate right now in Arizona
Bob McDonnell, who became Governor of Virginia in 2009, where I currently live.
Notice not one mentions a policy or what party they represent.
San Francisco is a 'liberal' city and Newsom is using a non-traditional mix of colors but still keeping the blue as not to alienate some and not to appear too 'dangerous'. Twitter and facebook logos included for, in my opinion, no other reason than to appear young, tech savvy and current.
After losing the Presidential election in 2008, McCain rebranded. It is a younger looking sign but had the red, white and blue of the US flag and the hint of the flag at the top.
Dark blue. A color of power, respect and authority. The stars show a military and patriotic flavor. The sign states he is from Northern Virginia (I would guess, though I donít know that his opponent wasn't)
The battle for the 3rd tier isnít about politics or policy. Itís about presentation and your (CDM) grandmother isnít alone in her voting habits. Itís possible the US is more sophisticated in how the machine 'exploits' this but it is certainly a theme in all Western style democracies.
That took me a while to write up. I hope people found it as interesting as I did
Last edited by Goughy; 28-04-2010 at 09:12 PM.
So just in conclusion of my previous post, the aim to get 3rd tier voters is to make them like the candidate and the visuals (and their repeated viewing) do that without people even knowing it.
The signs subtly show the values the voters wants without any policy. When it works it makes the voter like the candidate and gain votes they would otherwise not have.
The real aim is to make the name of the candidate have positive connotations in the mind of the voter and it sounds obvious but people like to vote for people they have positive thoughts about regardless of party.
Last edited by Goughy; 28-04-2010 at 10:07 PM.
Interesting read goughy, as far as I knew subliminal advertisement was illegal. And looking at what you've posted it seems to be border-line subliminal. What do we do to combat this though? Surely we can't let the majority of votes fall to looks and sub conscious thoughts and feelings. It almost puts me back in the misanthropic thoughts of "Democracy doesn't work, simply because people are idiots."
Everyone wants to change the world, noone wants to change himself.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)