alt Hacker NewsThe thing is... on both the cited occasions (Nixon in 1968, Morrison in 2019), the politicians claiming the average voter agreed with them actually won that election
So, obviously their claims were at least partially true – because if they'd completely misjudged the average voter, they wouldn't have won
Replies
I don’t recall the circumstances under which Morrison ended up Prime Minister.
Like most Australians, I’m in denial any of that episode ever happened.
But, using the current circumstances as an example, Australia has a voting system that enables a party to form government even though 65% of voting Australia’s didn’t vote for that party as their first preference.
If the other party and some of the smaller parties could have got their shit together Australia could have a slightly different flavour of complete fucking disaster of a Government, rather than whatever the fuck Anthony Albanese thinks he’s trying to be.
Then there’s Susan Ley. The least preferred leader of the two major parties in a generation.
Susan Ley is Anthony Albanese in a skirt.
I would have preferred Potato Head, to be honest.
Hmm. Actually, I think the suggestion of a law puts this whole thing on bad footing where we need to draw an otherwise unnecessary line (to denote where this type of rhetoric should be legal). I suspect XorNot just put the line there because the idea that true statements should be illegal just seems silly.
Really it just ought to be a thing that we identify as a thought-terminating cliche. No laws needed, let’s just not fall for a lazy trick. Whether or not it is true that lots of people agreed, that isn’t a good argument that they are right.
The case of Nixon really brings that out. The “Silent Majority” was used to refer to people who didn’t protest the Vietnam War. Of course, in retrospect the Vietnam War was pretty bad. Arguing that it was secretly popular should have not been accepted as a substitute for an argument that it was good.
People vote for people they don't agree with.
When there are only two choices, and infinite issues, voters only have two choices: Vote for someone you don't agree with less, or vote for someone you quite hilariously imagine agrees with you.
EDIT: Not being cynical about voters. But about the centralization of parties, in number and operationally, as a steep barrier for voter choice.