TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
sMASH wrote:eh, look how much business the brian lara stadium bring in!!!! money well spent.. like cuffie, they save it.
hydroep wrote:Spending the country's limited resources on one settah Bool-Chit vanity/payback/kickback projects that doesn't benefit a people suffering under these trying economic circumstances — much of which was inflicted by the same arseholes in power — just reflects a "Big Government" mentality i.e. one that has lost touch with the masses.
The only consolation is that most of the sh!tlickers who was laughing and giggling at Tantie Kam's cutarse quiet like a mouse now. Dat good, leh dem ponder upon their job losses, eat grass and continue to lick Rowlee battam.
Grate is the Pee oN deM...
shake d livin wake d dead wrote:sMASH wrote:eh, look how much business the brian lara stadium bring in!!!! money well spent.. like cuffie, they save it.
t20 world cup just finished....not one game played there
hydroep wrote:Almost US$ 100M to arrive mid 2020 — just before general elections are due.
Refinery sale go pay fuh dat.
Sh!tkicker really know how to pander tuh he flock yes...
Again... you guys realise that the die hard PNM supporters that you make fun of are a vast minority right? only 30% of the voting population voted for PNM last election. A lot of those votes were against UNC (because there was 3rd party to provide real competition) and not really in support of PNM. That means the die hards would be like 15% to 20% maximum of the voting population.Ben_spanna wrote:hydroep wrote:Spending the country's limited resources on one settah Bool-Chit vanity/payback/kickback projects that doesn't benefit a people suffering under these trying economic circumstances — much of which was inflicted by the same arseholes in power — just reflects a "Big Government" mentality i.e. one that has lost touch with the masses.
The only consolation is that most of the sh!tlickers who was laughing and giggling at Tantie Kam's cutarse quiet like a mouse now. Dat good, leh dem ponder upon their job losses, eat grass and continue to lick Rowlee battam.
Grate is the Pee oN deM...
Now imagine all the disgruntled die hard pee-ennem supporters who refuse tuh vote an indian person back into powa, come next elections allyuh think things bad, what gonna happen if they vote in the Trade union idiot movement- then for sure all small businesses gone through... this country will then be completely fcked!
Trinidad is quickly becoming a terrible place to live with absolutely NO middle class- its either yuh rich rich of you scratching for leftovers...………….. crime just getting wuss, public utilities are the most unreliable, public service is still protected and they continue to do Nutthen for the positive contribution to this nation.
Slartibartfast wrote:A lot of those votes were against UNC (because there was 3rd party to provide real competition) and not really in support of PNM.
hydroep wrote:Let me ask you something, these people:Slartibartfast wrote:A lot of those votes were against UNC (because there was 3rd party to provide real competition) and not really in support of PNM.
On what basis did they vote for the PNM? Be as specific as you care to.
Slartibartfast wrote:hydroep wrote:Let me ask you something, these people:Slartibartfast wrote:A lot of those votes were against UNC (because there was 3rd party to provide real competition) and not really in support of PNM.
On what basis did they vote for the PNM? Be as specific as you care to.
I'm guilty for not being able to remember all the reasons to vote against UNC but the biggest reason that stuck with me was the corruption. Especially in the construction sector. I honestly can't remember if crime was a factor as well but both parties seem just as bad.
It still doesn't change the fact that 70% of the voting population did not vote for PNM though. Why are they hardly acknowledged? Even you seem more interested in a fraction of a minority that I mentioned than the vast majority that seems to be doing nothing.
I'm curious to know how 70% of the population can be powerless.
hydroep wrote:Slartibartfast wrote:hydroep wrote:Let me ask you something, these people:Slartibartfast wrote:A lot of those votes were against UNC (because there was 3rd party to provide real competition) and not really in support of PNM.
On what basis did they vote for the PNM? Be as specific as you care to.
I'm guilty for not being able to remember all the reasons to vote against UNC but the biggest reason that stuck with me was the corruption. Especially in the construction sector. I honestly can't remember if crime was a factor as well but both parties seem just as bad.
It still doesn't change the fact that 70% of the voting population did not vote for PNM though. Why are they hardly acknowledged? Even you seem more interested in a fraction of a minority that I mentioned than the vast majority that seems to be doing nothing.
I'm curious to know how 70% of the population can be powerless.
That's all right, I am well aware of the issues with the PP and I don't fault anyone for not voting for them. However I'm NOT asking about that.
I would like to know what is it about the PNM that made these people cast their votes for them?
Slartibartfast wrote:hydroep wrote:Slartibartfast wrote:hydroep wrote:Let me ask you something, these people:Slartibartfast wrote:A lot of those votes were against UNC (because there was 3rd party to provide real competition) and not really in support of PNM.
On what basis did they vote for the PNM? Be as specific as you care to.
I'm guilty for not being able to remember all the reasons to vote against UNC but the biggest reason that stuck with me was the corruption. Especially in the construction sector. I honestly can't remember if crime was a factor as well but both parties seem just as bad.
It still doesn't change the fact that 70% of the voting population did not vote for PNM though. Why are they hardly acknowledged? Even you seem more interested in a fraction of a minority that I mentioned than the vast majority that seems to be doing nothing.
I'm curious to know how 70% of the population can be powerless.
That's all right, I am well aware of the issues with the PP and I don't fault anyone for not voting for them. However I'm NOT asking about that.
I would like to know what is it about the PNM that made these people cast their votes for them?
Ah ok. For reasons that I do not fully understand, our system behaves like a 2 party system. For the past approximately 30 years it has been either UNC or PNM in power. The third parties that pop up never gain any real traction (for various reasons with the exception of COP) and many see votes for a third party as a wasted vote.
Therefore people end up voting for the "lesser of two evils". They don't necessarily vote for a party because they support them but because they want to be sure that the party they view as worse does not win the elections.
So for instance. I'm guessing that UNC would win the next election, not because more people are all of a sudden good with UNC now but because they are fedup of the rising cost of living, taxes, layoffs etc. and a voting against the PNM.
hydroep wrote:Slartibartfast wrote:hydroep wrote:Slartibartfast wrote:hydroep wrote:Let me ask you something, these people:Slartibartfast wrote:A lot of those votes were against UNC (because there was 3rd party to provide real competition) and not really in support of PNM.
On what basis did they vote for the PNM? Be as specific as you care to.
I'm guilty for not being able to remember all the reasons to vote against UNC but the biggest reason that stuck with me was the corruption. Especially in the construction sector. I honestly can't remember if crime was a factor as well but both parties seem just as bad.
It still doesn't change the fact that 70% of the voting population did not vote for PNM though. Why are they hardly acknowledged? Even you seem more interested in a fraction of a minority that I mentioned than the vast majority that seems to be doing nothing.
I'm curious to know how 70% of the population can be powerless.
That's all right, I am well aware of the issues with the PP and I don't fault anyone for not voting for them. However I'm NOT asking about that.
I would like to know what is it about the PNM that made these people cast their votes for them?
Ah ok. For reasons that I do not fully understand, our system behaves like a 2 party system. For the past approximately 30 years it has been either UNC or PNM in power. The third parties that pop up never gain any real traction (for various reasons with the exception of COP) and many see votes for a third party as a wasted vote.
Therefore people end up voting for the "lesser of two evils". They don't necessarily vote for a party because they support them but because they want to be sure that the party they view as worse does not win the elections.
So for instance. I'm guessing that UNC would win the next election, not because more people are all of a sudden good with UNC now but because they are fedup of the rising cost of living, taxes, layoffs etc. and a voting against the PNM.
Cool, I can respect that, but it's still a very broad answer. I suppose what I'm getting at is this:
To say that one voted for the lesser of two evils presupposes that at least a rudimentary "pros" and "cons" analysis was done between the two competing options.
As you have pointed out with the low voter turn-out, the majority of the electorate probably did that and decided neither party was worthy and consequently withheld their vote.
Which begs the question: What "pros" did the PNM have which led these people to believe that it was the lesser of two evils?
Slartibartfast wrote:hydroep wrote:Slartibartfast wrote:hydroep wrote:Slartibartfast wrote:hydroep wrote:Let me ask you something, these people:Slartibartfast wrote:A lot of those votes were against UNC (because there was 3rd party to provide real competition) and not really in support of PNM.
On what basis did they vote for the PNM? Be as specific as you care to.
I'm guilty for not being able to remember all the reasons to vote against UNC but the biggest reason that stuck with me was the corruption. Especially in the construction sector. I honestly can't remember if crime was a factor as well but both parties seem just as bad.
It still doesn't change the fact that 70% of the voting population did not vote for PNM though. Why are they hardly acknowledged? Even you seem more interested in a fraction of a minority that I mentioned than the vast majority that seems to be doing nothing.
I'm curious to know how 70% of the population can be powerless.
That's all right, I am well aware of the issues with the PP and I don't fault anyone for not voting for them. However I'm NOT asking about that.
I would like to know what is it about the PNM that made these people cast their votes for them?
Ah ok. For reasons that I do not fully understand, our system behaves like a 2 party system. For the past approximately 30 years it has been either UNC or PNM in power. The third parties that pop up never gain any real traction (for various reasons with the exception of COP) and many see votes for a third party as a wasted vote.
Therefore people end up voting for the "lesser of two evils". They don't necessarily vote for a party because they support them but because they want to be sure that the party they view as worse does not win the elections.
So for instance. I'm guessing that UNC would win the next election, not because more people are all of a sudden good with UNC now but because they are fedup of the rising cost of living, taxes, layoffs etc. and a voting against the PNM.
Cool, I can respect that, but it's still a very broad answer. I suppose what I'm getting at is this:
To say that one voted for the lesser of two evils presupposes that at least a rudimentary "pros" and "cons" analysis was done between the two competing options.
As you have pointed out with the low voter turn-out, the majority of the electorate probably did that and decided neither party was worthy and consequently withheld their vote.
Which begs the question: What "pros" did the PNM have which led these people to believe that it was the lesser of two evils?
Thats just it. I don't think any "pros" were required. It is likely that either no pro/con analysis done or in the cases where it was, it may have been heavily skewed against UNC. I think the stuff that UNC did was just fresher in their memory. Also, the events would have been current and negative effects easily identifiable. That means that whatever party is in power is most likely to lose which is what has been happening for the past 15 to 20 years (not sure, fact check me on that).
If all else remains the same I'm expecting UNC to win the next election with a similar or lower voter turn out than last elections. Btw, these are all my opinions based on personal observations so pepper it with salt. Interested to hear what you think.
That's interesting. I never considered categorising the the swing voters based on motivation but it appears to make sense. I'm sure there would be better words than "moral" and "intellectual" to describe them but I can't think of any and I understand what you are trying to say and will use those definitions moving forward for ease of communication.hydroep wrote:
It's an interesting analysis, one that would certainly explain the current voting patterns.
The approach I've taken — as you may have gathered from my questions — is to try to understand the motivations of the voter, and this is what I've come up with.
In my observation, there are two broad classes of voters:
*The grassroots whose values and beliefs are fixed and will generally vote one way, only changing if something catastrophic happens.
*The independent 'swing' voters who move between two extremes on a spectrum:
a. On the extreme left, you have the Moral voters, those who ALWAYS vote no matter what to "save" the country from a party that they perceive to be "bad".
b. On the extreme right, you have the purely Intellectual voters who MAY OR MAY NOT cast a ballot. That choice depends upon their reading of actual issues and are not swayed by emotions.
Of course most people are hybrids.
If we are to mesh that analysis with your figures, it means that the majority of them are closer to the intellectual side of things which would indicate a very mature T&T electorate.
The problem with that scenario is that it doesn't force any of the parties to up their game to capture the logical, issue based voter - that is too much work for them (think debates, discussions etc.)
Both sides already have their grassroots so that is a non-issue.
They much rather focus their efforts on capturing the "easily swayed" moral voter because politicians have mastered the art of "riling up people". It's just a matter of who does it better on a particular election cycle. The thing is because that target group is shrinking, politicians have upped the ante significantly. A casual look at the hustings of late and you can probably tell that's exactly what's going on.
Thoughts?
Slartibartfast wrote:That's interesting. I never considered categorising the the swing voters based on motivation but it appears to make sense. I'm sure there would be better words than "moral" and "intellectual" to describe them but I can't think of any and I understand what you are trying to say and will use those definitions moving forward for ease of communication.
So taking it one step further. The main difference in the polls between moral and intellectual voters is voter turn out. Our elections (according [url="Wikipedia"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Trinidad_and_Tobago#General_elections[/url]) has a voter turn out between 65% to 70% which suggests very few purely intellectual voters. So I agree that the majority of the swing voters would appear to be moral or hybrids.
I think you are spot on with what the main problem is in our current scenario. I also believe that swing voters are becoming demoralised and they are using it to their advantage. I mean, who has time to really pay attention to and remember all the bullsh!t they do during each election cycle. Bullsh!t is the new norm. All they have to do to get away with it is make it seem like there is no other alternative. By focusing on the die-hards you keep the swing voters demoralised and easier to sway. I think the real issue is that there is a significant portion of the population that is ready for something new but to demoralised and cynical to demand it. This works in their favour to keep the status quo so they are doing nothing to change it. It is in their best interest to keep things the same. Progress is their enemy.
What we need is a way for swing voters to get some real power and that starts by swing voters uniting. We need to realise that the worse thing we can do is treat all PNM voters the same or treat all UNC voters the same. A significant portion of PNM/UNC voters are swing voters and are just as upset about our political representation as you are. I think swing voters have no power because we continue being played. But, the funny thing is that we are the ones playing ourselves. I think realising that is what is critical to give swing voters any real power.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: The_Honourable and 56 guests
