One Key Question

[Glaringly]

There is a reason why I used 'rule', and in turn, 'exception'.

The majority vs minority dichotomy speaks about quantity, and doesn't offer an elucidation of the context.

I am not so complex lah, I treat it as a face value question when you ask why are there people that don't support the victors.

I suppose it's each individual value system.

Here's are some studies...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071219155445.htm

ScienceDaily (Dec. 20, 2007) — In a series of studies, researchers from the University of South Florida tested the scope of people's support for those who are expected to lose, seeking to understand why people are drawn to the Rocky Balboas and the Davids (versus Goliaths) of the world.

Why do people support underdogs and find them so appealing?

The researchers propose that those who are viewed as disadvantaged arouse people's sense of fairness and justice -- important principles to most people

http://lesswrong.com/lw/7s/why_support_the_underdog/

One of the strangest human biases is the almost universal tendency to support the underdog.

I say "human" because even though Americans like to identify themselves as particular friends of the underdog, you can find a little of it everywhere. Anyone who's watched anime knows the Japanese have it. Anyone who's read the Bible knows the Israelites had it (no one was rooting for Goliath!) From mythology to literature to politics to sports, it keeps coming up.

 

[Einfield]

Where you got your data from?
You will be surprise that in the 33% opposition vote, many are well to do people and the 66% are the fools who are poor, complain like hell but when it comes to election, vote PAP because of fear?

It's perhaps understandable if the friends and family of the super-talented indispensable ministars, the civil servants, the high level corporate executives, the rich businessmen, the grassroot leaders and rc members, the newly minted citizens and the asslickers, support the pap and their policies.

But why is it that a large number of people who are ordinary, low-income, not-so-rich, trying hard to make ends meet, even struggling singaporeans, also support the pap?

 

[jw5]

I hope you guys will answer the original question or disagree with reasons or give your comments, instead of asking a different question and trying to answer it.
The question is most definitely not why people support the underdogs or the opposition. The answer to this question can be found in 80% of the posts in this forum and from what 80% of the forummers say.

The question is why the ordinary people who are struggling to make ends meet, support pap.
Some have suggested it's because of gains from increase in hdb prices.
But let's say someone bought his hdb for $300K several years ago. Today, it's $400K.
What is he going to do next? Sell and buy a landed property? He can't. Sell and upgrade to a condo? Maybe, but it will be tight and he had better have a constant and reliable income stream.
So what does he have really to be happy or contented about the pap?

 

[jw5]

This question can only be positively answered if the political playing field is on an even ground. What is the use of an analysis, when each election the people are hapless or don't care they keep changing the electoral boundaries & call it democracy.

Yes, they implemented the grc system and revised it and do constant gerrymeandering via electoral boundaries to gain an advantage.
But no matter how they draw the boundaries, there should still be at least 60 to 70% of ordinary people some of whom are struugling just to stay afloat or even find space, who should not be happy with them.
Why is it then that they still manage to consistently get 60 to 70% of the votes?
There must be some of these ordinary struggling people supporting them.

 

[jw5]

Where you got your data from?
You will be surprise that in the 33% opposition vote, many are well to do people and the 66% are the fools who are poor, complain like hell but when it comes to election, vote PAP because of fear?

I'm not surprised that among the 33%, there are some well-to-do people, probably even some in this forum.
Some people even if they are doing well themselves, just can't stand to see society in general suffer or see injustice.

What I'm asking about is the poor and the suffering among the 66% who vote pap.
Are they like what you said voting out of fear or because they are fools?
Or are there other reasons?
That's what I'm trying to explore.

 

[gbomega]

Because the Opposition is useless, the voters are thoughtlessly selfish and the Govt manipulated the policies.

 

[jw5]

Because the Opposition is useless, the voters are thoughtlessly selfish and the Govt manipulated the policies.

That's a very good and succinct answer actually.
But the opposition is improving.
The voters even if they are thoughtlessly selfish, must be finding life tough, if not financially, surely in terms of space.
And the fact that they manipulate policies surely must be evident to most singaporeans by now.
Why do they still have a strong majority?

 

[Ramseth]

With opposition like Desmond Lim around, I wouldn't blame anyone for voting PAP even if they field a cow.

 

[kingrant]

No matter how well the PAP does, there is always a core diehard 25% who will oppose it. The PAP knows it. Over the last 2 elections, it seems to be more like 30%. The PAP diehards command 45-50%. The rest of the 20% or so are fence sitters and can swing either way. This is the group a strong Opp can influence and prevail over to be able to capture power. Both sides are actually always fighting with this middle ground in mind.

I hope you guys will answer the original question or disagree with reasons or give your comments, instead of asking a different question and trying to answer it.
The question is most definitely not why people support the underdogs or the opposition. The answer to this question can be found in 80% of the posts in this forum and from what 80% of the forummers say.

The question is why the ordinary people who are struggling to make ends meet, support pap.
Some have suggested it's because of gains from increase in hdb prices.
But let's say someone bought his hdb for $300K several years ago. Today, it's $400K.
What is he going to do next? Sell and buy a landed property? He can't. Sell and upgrade to a condo? Maybe, but it will be tight and he had better have a constant and reliable income stream.
So what does he have really to be happy or contented about the pap?

 

[Sideswipe]

No matter how well the PAP does, there is always a core diehard 25% who will oppose it. The PAP knows it. Over the last 2 elections, it seems to be more like 30%. The PAP diehards command 45-50%. The rest of the 20% or so are fence sitters and can swing either way. This is the group a strong Opp can influence and prevail over to be able to capture power. Both sides are actually always fighting with this middle ground in mind.

If PAP diehards / 鐵票 are really 45-50%, our oppositions are fighting a hopeless battle.
The 20% swing votes can't significantly influence our elections results / make PAP lose power.

In first past the post system, law of maths suggest that you can confirm have a majority in parliament with 45% of votes.

 

[scroobal]

There are 2 main reasons why the PAP are in power.

1) If you did your sums, you will know that about 34% of the eligible voters voted for the PAP. The majority did not get to vote as they there were no contest. The PAP has done well to keep candidates out by various measures including ridiculously high deposits etc.

2) The strategy of tying people's material wealth to PAP's hold on power. The HDB houses 85% of the population and HDB is maintained and run by the PAP and it can dictate how the prices are set. Unlike elsewhere where the supernnuatuion or retirement fund cannot be used for housing, the PAP has tied it all in one go. Tor the elite, the PAP is the best capitalist govt ever. If you have no social morals and all you want to do is make money, there is nothing better than the PAP govt.

In essence, only 34% actually voted for the PAP. Most people are shallow and tend to follow the compliant press approach to mathematics to compute the figures. No other democractic country has elections where a large majroity of the public have no chance to vote. In most elections, the uncontested seats already indicates that the govt will return to power after nomination day.

It's perhaps understandable if the friends and family of the super-talented indispensable ministars, the civil servants, the high level corporate executives, the rich businessmen, the grassroot leaders and rc members, the newly minted citizens and the asslickers, support the pap and their policies.

But why is it that a large number of people who are ordinary, low-income, not-so-rich, trying hard to make ends meet, even struggling singaporeans, also support the pap?

 

[jw5]

Who here agrees with kingrant and thinks that the pap have 45-50% diehard?
I'm not sure but I tend to agree.
Those fellows that I mentioned in my first post, if you add all of them together with some deluded folks, I think they have got 45 to 50% diehard.
That will always be enough for them, as sideswipe said.

Do you think the inconveniences and losses caused by floods, the income and wealth disparity between the elites and ordinaries, the over-crowding especially on public transport, etc will cause this % to drop?
I doubt it.

 

[jw5]

There are 2 main reasons why the PAP are in power.

1) If you did your sums, you will know that about 34% of the eligible voters voted for the PAP. The majority did not get to vote as they there were no contest. The PAP has done well to keep candidates out by various measures including ridiculously high deposits etc.

2) The strategy of tying people's material wealth to PAP's hold on power. The HDB houses 85% of the population and HDB is maintained and run by the PAP and it can dictate how the prices are set. Unlike elsewhere where the supernnuatuion or retirement fund cannot be used for housing, the PAP has tied it all in one go. Tor the elite, the PAP is the best capitalist govt ever. If you have no social morals and all you want to do is make money, there is nothing better than the PAP govt.

In essence, only 34% actually voted for the PAP. Most people are shallow and tend to follow the compliant press approach to mathematics to compute the figures. No other democractic country has elections where a large majroity of the public have no chance to vote. In most elections, the uncontested seats already indicates that the govt will return to power after nomination day.

Agree with both your points, but even if only 34% of the eligible voters voted for them, that was enough because less than 34% (probably more like below 30%) voted for the other guys.
Why is that? Is it because they have got enough even among those people who did get a chance to vote?
That is, if you add all those mentioned in my first post + deluded buggers together, they will always have enough.

As for the material wealth part, yes that's true, some of these selfish thoughtless felllows benefit materially. But as in the example I mentioned, how does that really improve his life? Or is he just thinking about his paper gain, grinning like a fool and marking the box like one too?

My point again is that there are a lot of ordinary folk many of whom are struggling, who support pap.

 

[Ramseth]

My point again is that there are a lot of ordinary folk many of whom are struggling, who support pap.

Who else to support with the likes of Desmond Lim around?

Either vote for PAP or moronarchy. The choice is clear, isn't it?

 

[jw5]

Who else to support with the likes of Desmond Lim around?

Either vote for PAP or moronarchy. The choice is clear, isn't it?

He's only one person, and it's only recently that he's been in the news.
But frankly, the situation has become so serious in my opinion, that given a choice between him and 99% of the pappy candidates, I would vote for him.
At least he can go and make a bit of noise in parliament, instead of agreeing with everything oldman says.
How effective he will be or how much he will fight for the ordinary singaporean, nobody knows. But at least we don't know. With the pappies, we know.

 

[Ramseth]

He's only one person, and it's only recently that he's been in the news.
But frankly, the situation has become so serious in my opinion, that given a choice between him and 99% of the pappy candidates, I would vote for him.
At least he can go and make a bit of noise in parliament, instead of agreeing with everything oldman says.
How effective he will be or how much he will fight for the ordinary singaporean, nobody knows. But at least we don't know. With the pappies, we know.

It's news to you but I've been in the circle a long time. Still nevermind, your vote will be honored and counted.

 

[silverfox@]

The question is why the ordinary people who are struggling to make ends meet, support pap.
Some have suggested it's because of gains from increase in hdb prices.
But let's say someone bought his hdb for $300K several years ago. Today, it's $400K.
What is he going to do next? Sell and buy a landed property? He can't. Sell and upgrade to a condo? Maybe, but it will be tight and he had better have a constant and reliable income stream.
So what does he have really to be happy or contented about the pap?

In this world there are vocal people and non-vocal people. The vocal ones like us here makes a lot of noises on the internet, but for every vocal person, there would actually be 2-3 non-vocal ones.

I believe that in every election, we must respect the choice of the majority. To those who are in the minority will think the majority are stupid, but there will never be a general consensus where everyone can agree on. Just take a look at the yellow and red war at Thailand. Everyone have their agenda and who suffer? The ones who don't stand on either side.

The ordinary guy on the street may be comfortable with what he has. Though may not be contented, but he still can meet both ends. There are people who are happy with what they have, and there are those who are not susceptible to changes. Just like why some people dabble in stocks, investments while some do not dare. Some like gambling, some don't.

If i put myself in their shoes, will a change of govt affect my job, will i be able to upkeep my instalments, will my family have enough to eat, will my kids continue to have peace of mind in studying in school...just some of the many common day by day scenarios people will think

 

[jw5]

In this world there are vocal people and non-vocal people. The vocal ones like us here makes a lot of noises on the internet, but for every vocal person, there would actually be 2-3 non-vocal ones.

I believe that in every election, we must respect the choice of the majority. To those who are in the minority will think the majority are stupid, but there will never be a general consensus where everyone can agree on. Just take a look at the yellow and red war at Thailand. Everyone have their agenda and who suffer? The ones who don't stand on either side.

The ordinary guy on the street may be comfortable with what he has. Though may not be contented, but he still can meet both ends. There are people who are happy with what they have, and there are those who are not susceptible to changes. Just like why some people dabble in stocks, investments while some do not dare. Some like gambling, some don't.

If i put myself in their shoes, will a change of govt affect my job, will i be able to upkeep my instalments, will my family have enough to eat, will my kids continue to have peace of mind in studying in school...just some of the many common day by day scenarios people will think

The problem is that over many years, they have succeeded in inculcating in many singaporean minds the notion that if the pappies are not voted for, there will be adverse impact in the things they care and worry about, including those you mentioned.

It is now so successful that even when the voter is facing setbacks in his life as a result of government policies or government non-action, he still believes that there will be worse impact if he doesn't support them.

It's as if someone is facing a situation or a dilemma and he thinks that there are 2 options. Option A is his current situation which is not so good. Option B is perhaps to vote out pap, but this would then make his situation worse than the current state. He doesn't stop to think that there could be options C, D or E, simply because he has been made to believe that there are only options A and B.

Perhaps it's due to a lack of thought process.......................Hahahaha.

 

[Sideswipe]

I believe that in every election, we must respect the choice of the majority. To those who are in the minority will think the majority are stupid, but there will never be a general consensus where everyone can agree on. Just take a look at the yellow and red war at Thailand. Everyone have their agenda and who suffer? The ones who don't stand on either side.

yes, accept majority choices but I think we must respect the minority ( 33% ) by having some sort of proportional representation alongside plurality elections NOT NCMP and NMP.

unlikely to happen next GE but not impossible - our oppositions lose Hougang and Potong Pasir narrowly with 48% votes. oppositions got 40%-45% in a few GRC. As a whole, oppositions votes increase to 40% but they now have zero seats in Parliament. How do one analysis this election result? The end of oppositions in Singapore despite having a combined 40% peasants mandate.

 

[jw5]

yes, accept majority choices but I think we must respect the minority ( 33% ) by having some sort of proportional representation alongside plurality elections NOT NCMP and NMP.

unlikely to happen next GE but not impossible - our oppositions lose Hougang and Potong Pasir narrowly with 48% votes. oppositions got 40%-45% in a few GRC. As a whole, oppositions votes increase to 40% but they now have zero seats in Parliament. How do one analysis this election result? The end of oppositions in Singapore despite having a combined 40% peasants mandate.

But as we discussed before, they won't do it because the present system suits them.
You said before that if they wanted the population's wishes to be reflected, they should change the system.
But that's not what they want. What they want is to maintain power and all that comes with it, and have as high a % of mps in parliament as possible.
So the question is then "What next?"