Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Joe Scott" channel.

  1. In Sweden do small parties like that getting called "vågmästare". And yes it is undemocratic when a party with only 2% support among the voters decide 20% of all politics in a country. The Swdish green party is like that. Both red and blue voters hate them. But since both red team and blue team are too small on their own to form a majority, they need this crappy party to assist them.
    2
  2. ​ @dimitarkrastev6085  I think is a dishonest behaviour. And sadly do too many idiots fall for that trick. It reminds me of how the left-wing party in Germany use Sahra Wagenknecht in their party to say some controversial things that is often much contrary to the stance that her own party have on certain issues. She is enormously loved by many, and hated by others. But personally do I think she is all a fake personality. She says anti-immigration things, only so the left in Germany can see where the political winds are blowing. Do their party increase or decrease in support after she say something? Is she more or is she less popular this year than the year before? And if she says something totally outragous.. then can the party just kick her out from the party and that her speech were just her own opinions and that they does not represent the ideas of the party (despite the leadership within the party might secretly agree with her, but they do not say so openly to not lose voters). So she is used out there to test controversial opinions for her party. If her ideas are popular - then the party follows her. And if her opinions are unpopular and criticised harshly, then the party does not follow her footsteps. And she has to take all criticism herself. So is it meaningful to vote for a person like her? Probably not. If you want real change you should vote for a political party that wants real change. If you want less immigration, you should vote for an anti-immigration party and not for someone like Sahra. Because a vote for her is first and foremost a vote for her party. She is out there to trick leftleaning anti-immgration voters to keep voting for die Linke and too fool some rightwingers to see her as an good looking alternative to the rightwing parties. In reality is she only a form of "controlled opposition" for her party. And is used as a test balloon to try out new political stances on new political issues for her party. In Sweden do we have a similiar person in Hanif Bali in the rightwing Moderate Party. He says controversial things all the time. He criticise his own party in public. He uses internet slang, memes and insults people and pretend to be cool. But when one looks at his actions instead of his words you see that the guy still have always voted like his own party in parliament. Even on issues like immigration, where he have been saying lots of critical things about his own party. So he is a dishonest liar. And so is his party who uses him as a tactic to gain to voters. Voters who otherwise might have voted for nationalist anti-immgration parties instead.
    2
  3. The Swedish system is better but it have many flaws. I wish we had the option of direct democracy like in Switzerland so the class of politicians would be unable to unite behind the backs of the voters and vote in favor of stuff that lacks support among the wider public. Much like how bi-partisan work in USA is usually about making life more miserable, rather than making life better for ordinary people. I also think that blocking parties smaller than 4% from entering parliament is undemocratic and stupid. Its only a way of rig the game in favor of the two biggest parties in my opinion, and it forces people to do tactical voting rather than following their own heart. Because if a government that includes say 3 parties is risking to break up because of one party being kicked out from the parliament because it only managed to get 3.8% of the votes... then will people feel like they have to vote for that party to save their ass and prevent the government from falling apart. So we have lots of small garbage parties in Sweden. Parties that in opinion polls only got say 2% support like the Greens, the liberals and the Christian democrats. And having 8 different parties in parliament is only making democracy unstable because some politician of those tiny parties put on the breaks for a governement of some tiny bullsh*t issue. As a friend of democracy I see nothing wrong with having 8 different parties in parliament, but the problem here is that the parties are not that different. The greens are 95% similiar to out leftwing party and socialdemocrats, so I nothing that makes this party unique that would justify its existence. Nor do I see the need for 2 liberal parties in parliament. And the christian democrats is just a 50%/50% mixture of the ideas from the nationalist party and the neoliberal party. So there is no point in having that party. So by removing the 4% entery to parliament, you would quicker get rid of useless parties. While young parties with new ideas would find it easier to grow. They could enter parliament at a much earlier stage and voters will therefore not feel discouraged from voting for them as they will not feel like their own vote has just been thrown away with no gain. And you Americans complain about the electoral collage. And yea I get it, "the winner takes it all" is a stupid idea. But one good thing about that system is that politicians care about the whole country, and not just about the big cities - like in Sweden, where politicians only cares about Stockholm and the sparsely populated northern half of the country gets no support at all for the issues of its concern but instead its just seen as an area for money extraction, so that policians can give their voter base in Stockholm free stuff to get their votes. So I am absolutly in favor of discriminating against urban voters. Especially since people in Stockholm have extreme opinions that does not represent the rest of the country. I would in fact be happy if Stockholm was kicked out from our country and was forced to become its own country / neoliberal failed state. Furthermore do voters not understand how our state work, as its responsabilities are divided up att several levels. 90% of our laws are made in the EU to begin with, so the political polarzation in our country just seem hysterical to me. The Swedish election is far from a life or death issue when our politicians have sold out our country to Brussels. The "regional" (provincial) elections is mostly about how people want their hospitals and healthcare to be organized in the province where they live. But here to do I think that a large part of the population does not even know what the blue paper they put in the balot is for. And its partly because people are ignorant and stupid 🙄 But it is also because our democratic system is needlessly divided up in so many parts that it can be difficult to get a good overview over the situation, so you can vote rationally according to your own will. And finlly we have municipal elections where you vote on local issues that only involves your local town or villages. Personally I think that our own federal government should have more power, at the expense of the EU, the municipalities and regions. The regions is just a stupid artifact from the Swedish state that existed in the 1600s. So it is about time to modernize the state apparatus. I think that with a strong government, would people know where they should go if they want to make political change, and who they should hold accountable if things suck. I understand that I belong to a minority, when I hate the EU as much as I do and want a Brexit style referendum here in Sweden to leave the EU. But let's now instead focus on its harmful effects on our democracy. People votes for the Swedish parliament, and then they get frustrated when they do not get any change, and get angry on our politicians - but it is not the Swedish politicians fault, because the decision has been made in Brussels, and the only way to change them is down in Brussels. But unfortunatly are most Swedish voters too ignorant to understand this 🙄 And even many Swedish anti-EU voters are stupid. You can see this during the EU election years, when Swedish anti-EU parties grows in strength compared to how people have voted in the Swedish election. To me this is the ultimate form of idiocy. First of all, even if say a Swedish anti-EU party got 100% of all votes it would still be unable to do anything useful - like for example leaving the EU. Because if you want to leave the EU, then you should vote in the Swedish parliament election for anti-EU parties instead. Voting in the EU parliament election is only harmful at best, and counterproductive at its worse. You will achieve 0% change in the EU, while the higher voter turnout will only be used as an argument for EU's democratic legitimacy. Had you stayed home and not voted - like in countries in eastern Europe where only 13% of people have voted during the EU parliament election.. then you have undermined all claims that the EU is a real democracy with support from the people.
    1
  4. I want ranked voting and I want proportional representation. I want the Swiss direct voting on referendums. And I want Irelands laws that says that every change of the constitution must be determined by a direct voting referendum by the people. And 2nd chamber in the parliament where the countryside have an over-representation so that their interests does not get forgotten and ignored - as they tend to do in places like Sweden, where 100% of all attention is giving to the city Stockholm, and 0% is given to the country side in Norrland (northern Sweden). I also think that the electoral threshold should be done away with completly - as such a rule will only benefit established parties at the expense of new ones.
    1
  5. I think the voting age should be between 24 and 75. I also think that we should have an election every 2 years so we can quickly change a failed government if needed to. I think every decision in parliament should need at least 70% of the votes before it should be allowed to pass, so we can be sure that every decision that is made have a strong democratic backing.
    1
  6. Just talk to an average voter for 5 minutes. That is probably the best way of quickly realizing the flaws of democracy when you see how dumb and childish people are 🙄 (Im not saying other systems are any better btw.)
    1
  7. One problem with democracy that I hate is that in a country where the party white gets 51% and party black gets 49%.. you will see party white decide 100% of the time. And this party might use the state apparatus to benefit their own voters on everyone elses expense by taxing others and hand out the stolen money as gifts to their own voters. Both leftwing and rightwing parties behaves like this. In a good political system should the concerns of a large minority be taken into account and concessions should be made. With the tyrrany of the majority you get power abuse, corruption and a bad society. I rather have society that is held togheter, and where a sense of justice and fairness prevail. The "winner takes it all" in the electoral collage is the reason why i hate the system. Otherwise I do like the system. If the party that lost the state with say 45% of the votes also could send a guy to Washington as a representative then the system would become more fair. So the solution is to add more seats as I see it and to make things a bit more like a proportional representation. Otherwise I do like the idea of an electoral collage... as I do not big Cities to get too much power in a country.
    1