12 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Equally, no. Nor are the interpreters and simplifiers and dichotomizers all equally capable of understanding what they're telling us about. If that capacity divides us into only two kinds of people, the two are : insiders and outsiders; those who lie and those who are lied-to.  Otherwise, the governing classes would make an effort to disseminate accurate factual information to the voters - on the expectation that next year, a larger percentage understand it than last year.

As I've said before, we are all different in a billion different ways, but we are all human; like a bat is a bat.

There's not two kinds of people, there's just people, understanding in a billion different way's that's why the founding father's chose a two party system and included protection to prevent a bias in the system; it worked quite well for 200+ year's, but now it's become dogma and it encourages people to not think about the meaning of the document.

Then one day the pressure on the people, force's a change of direction (Like a pendulum)... 😉

The founding fathers did not choose or want a two party system. 

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison,  and Washington all spoke out against the formation of political parties.   Several Federalist Papers were issued against the whole idea.   

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

...that's why the founding father's chose a two party system...

In what country did that happen?

I wasn't being literal...

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I wasn't being literal...

So you were being "figurative" when you said...

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

...the founding father's chose a two party system and included protection to prevent a bias in the system; it worked quite well for 200+ year's...

Yeah, I'm calling BS on that.

16 hours ago, zapatos said:

So you were being "figurative" when you said...

Yeah, I'm calling BS on that.

I'll accept poor choice of word's but not BS, I should have said "There's not two kinds of people, there's just people, understanding in a billion different way's that's how the founding father's unwittingly set the conditions for a two party system and included protection to prevent a bias in the system; it worked quite well for 200+ year's, but now it's become dogma and it encourages people to not think about the meaning of the document."

I'm just trying to explain how an infinitely compex system tends to devolve into a simplistic one, because people are people.

On 10/7/2021 at 1:44 AM, Peterkin said:

Not confusion regarding pendulums, which, in my limited experience swing back and forth, not sideways or up and down. Back and forth can be east to west, left to right or nave to chancel, but never win or lose. Therefore I doubt as to the validity of the metaphor. There is nothing about a pendulum that indicates political direction, nor about political aspirations that indicate a pendulum.

You had best contact the BBC and explain they have been doing it incorrectly for more than half a century. Bob Mckenzie, renowned psephologist, must be turning in his grave. Or, perhaps more appropriately, swinging from side to side.

 

11 minutes ago, Area54 said:

You had best contact the BBC and explain they have been doing it incorrectly for more than half a century. Bob Mckenzie, renowned psephologist, must be turning in his grave. Or, perhaps more appropriately, swinging from side to side.

You mean that some expert on elections predicted that the UK population would swing back and forth between Conservative and Labour for the last fifty years? They have done that, and if they were reporting it accurately, the BBC was not "doing it wrong". An electorate being offered a very limited choice, election after election, by the same ruling elite does not constitute a political direction or entail even the slightest change in direction.  

PS I hope Mr. Mckenzie's eternal slumber is not too greatly disturbed by my tactless remarks.