一项调查显示，年轻人对英国民主的信心急剧下降
Young adults have dramatic loss of faith in UK democracy, survey reveals
译文简介
“分而治之正合我意。”——《卫报》报道。
正文翻译
Young adults have dramatic loss of faith in UK democracy, survey reveals
-Report says sidelining of parliament by Tory government has further eroded trust in political system
一项调查显示，年轻人对英国民主的信心急剧下降
——报告称，保守党政府让议会靠边站，进一步侵蚀了人们对政治体系的信任
-Report says sidelining of parliament by Tory government has further eroded trust in political system
一项调查显示，年轻人对英国民主的信心急剧下降
——报告称，保守党政府让议会靠边站，进一步侵蚀了人们对政治体系的信任
(Boris Johnson at PMQ's in the House of Commons on 30 March.)
（3月30日，下议院首相提问环节中的鲍里斯·约翰逊。）
新闻：
A dramatic loss of faith in the ability of British democracy to serve the interests of UK voters is revealed in a new report that finds that donors to political parties and big businesses are now commonly viewed by the electorate as the main drivers of government policy.
一份新报告显示，人们对英国民主服务于英国选民利益的能力严重丧失了信心。报告发现，选民目前普遍认为，政党和大企业的捐款人才是政府政策的主要推手。
一份新报告显示，人们对英国民主服务于英国选民利益的能力严重丧失了信心。报告发现，选民目前普遍认为，政党和大企业的捐款人才是政府政策的主要推手。
Disturbing evidence that millions of voters feel their voices and views go largely unheard while big money interests hold most sway is uncovered in the latest report by the IPPR thinktank, in collaboration with the Observer, on the future of democracy.
IPPR智库在与《观察家报》合作的关于民主未来的最新报告中揭示了令人不安的证据，即数百万选民感到他们的声音和观点在很大程度上被忽视，而大的金钱利益占据了主导地位。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
IPPR智库在与《观察家报》合作的关于民主未来的最新报告中揭示了令人不安的证据，即数百万选民感到他们的声音和观点在很大程度上被忽视，而大的金钱利益占据了主导地位。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The study, entitled Road to Renewal, draws on YouGov polling of 3,442 adults, which found that just 6% of voters in elections in Great Britain believe their views are the main influences behind eventual decisions on policy taken by government ministers.
这项名为《复兴之路》的研究利用了舆观对3442名成年人进行的民意调查，结果发现，只有6%的选民认为他们的观点在英国的选举中是政府部长最终政策决定背后的主要影响因素。
这项名为《复兴之路》的研究利用了舆观对3442名成年人进行的民意调查，结果发现，只有6%的选民认为他们的观点在英国的选举中是政府部长最终政策决定背后的主要影响因素。
By contrast, more than four times as many (25%) believe major donors to political parties have the most influence over shaping policy, followed by business groups and corporations (16%), newspapers and the media (13%) and lobbyists and pressure groups (12%).
相比之下，超过四倍的人（25%）认为政党的主要捐赠者对政策的形成有最大的影响力，其次是商业团体和公司（16%）、报纸和媒体（13%）以及说客和压力集团（12%）。
相比之下，超过四倍的人（25%）认为政党的主要捐赠者对政策的形成有最大的影响力，其次是商业团体和公司（16%）、报纸和媒体（13%）以及说客和压力集团（12%）。
Just 2% cite trade unxs as the main forces behind policy decisions, which the report’s authors note is “a remarkable shift since the 1970s and 1980s when concerns about overly powerful unxs was widespread”. The polling was jointly commissioned by IPPR, the Electoral Reform Society and Unlock Democracy.
只有2%的人认为工会是政策决定背后的主要力量，该报告的作者指出，这是“自20世纪70年代和80年代以来的显著转变，当时人们普遍担心工会权力过大”。这项调查是由IPPR、选举改革协会和“开启民主”联合委托进行的。
只有2%的人认为工会是政策决定背后的主要力量，该报告的作者指出，这是“自20世纪70年代和80年代以来的显著转变，当时人们普遍担心工会权力过大”。这项调查是由IPPR、选举改革协会和“开启民主”联合委托进行的。
The study traces growing dissatisfaction with advanced democracies worldwide over recent decades, reflected in falling turnout at elections, falling party memberships, and more people switching loyalties, including to populist alternatives.
该研究追踪了近几十年来世界各地对先进民主国家日益增长的不满，反映为选举投票率下降、政党成员人数下降以及越来越多的人转变忠诚，包括转向民粹主义替代品。
该研究追踪了近几十年来世界各地对先进民主国家日益增长的不满，反映为选举投票率下降、政党成员人数下降以及越来越多的人转变忠诚，包括转向民粹主义替代品。
It calls for an urgent rethink by mainstream parties of how democracy works in the UK, including steps to reconnect citizens with politics and politicians through devolution of more powers. It calls for greater checks on executive power to safeguard representative democracy, laying blame at the door of Boris Johnson’s government for ignoring parliament when it can.
它呼吁主流政党迫切反思英国的民主如何运作，包括采取措施，通过下放更多权力，让公民与政治和政治家重新建立联系。它呼吁加强对行政权力的检查，以保护代议制民主，并指责鲍里斯·约翰逊政府钻空子无视议会。
它呼吁主流政党迫切反思英国的民主如何运作，包括采取措施，通过下放更多权力，让公民与政治和政治家重新建立联系。它呼吁加强对行政权力的检查，以保护代议制民主，并指责鲍里斯·约翰逊政府钻空子无视议会。
“The sidelining of parliament by the current government – including briefing to the media before MPs, passing sweeping pandemic legislation without parliamentary censure, minimal parliamentary oversight of Brexit negotiations and the prorogation of parliament,” were all examples of abuses that contributed to lack of faith in the democratic process.
“现任政府将议会边缘化——包括在议员面前向媒体通报情况，在没有议会谴责的情况下通过大规模流行病立法，议会对英国脱欧谈判的监督微乎其微，以及议会休会，”都是导致人们对民主进程缺乏信心的滥用例子。
“现任政府将议会边缘化——包括在议员面前向媒体通报情况，在没有议会谴责的情况下通过大规模流行病立法，议会对英国脱欧谈判的监督微乎其微，以及议会休会，”都是导致人们对民主进程缺乏信心的滥用例子。
The public’s verdict on politicians’ ability to comprehend their lives is damning. Asked how well they believed “politicians understood the lives of people like you”, a total of 78% of voting adults said badly, with this number split between the 36% who said “fairly badly” and 42% who answered “very badly”. Just 1% said “very well” and 12% “fairly well”.
公众对政客理解自己生活的能力的判断是毁灭性的。当被问及他们认为“政客们对你们这样的人的生活有多了解”时，共有78%的成年人表示不了解，其中36%的人认为“相当不了解”，42%的人认为“非常不了解”。只有1%的人说“很好”，12%的人说“相当好”。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
公众对政客理解自己生活的能力的判断是毁灭性的。当被问及他们认为“政客们对你们这样的人的生活有多了解”时，共有78%的成年人表示不了解，其中36%的人认为“相当不了解”，42%的人认为“非常不了解”。只有1%的人说“很好”，12%的人说“相当好”。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Young UK adults (18-24) are least likely to say democracy serves them well (just 19% say it operates well against 55% who say badly), while those aged 65 and over are most likely to say it is working for them (46% say well and 47% badly.)
英国年轻人（18-24岁）最不可能认为民主对他们有好处（只有19%的人认为民主很好，55%的人认为民主不好），而65岁及以上的人最有可能认为民主对他们有好处（46%的人认为民主好，47%的人认为民主不好）。
英国年轻人（18-24岁）最不可能认为民主对他们有好处（只有19%的人认为民主很好，55%的人认为民主不好），而65岁及以上的人最有可能认为民主对他们有好处（46%的人认为民主好，47%的人认为民主不好）。
IPPR warns that mainstream social democratic parties that fail to tackle the root causes of discontent with the political system jeopardise the foundations of liberal democracy and their own prospects of securing power.
IPPR警告称，如果主流社会民主党派未能解决人们对政治体制不满的根本原因，就会危及自由民主的基础，以及他们自己获得权力的前景。
IPPR警告称，如果主流社会民主党派未能解决人们对政治体制不满的根本原因，就会危及自由民主的基础，以及他们自己获得权力的前景。
Parth Patel, IPPR research fellow, said that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had led many leaders to praise the merits of liberal democracies over those of dictatorships, despite the many shortcomings of the former in the eyes of UK voters.
IPPR研究员帕特·帕特尔表示，俄罗斯入侵乌克兰导致许多领导人称赞自由民主比那些集权体制的优点，尽管在英国选民眼中，自由民主有许多缺点。
IPPR研究员帕特·帕特尔表示，俄罗斯入侵乌克兰导致许多领导人称赞自由民主比那些集权体制的优点，尽管在英国选民眼中，自由民主有许多缺点。
“In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, our leaders have lined up to champion liberal democracy. But the reality is that the battle for democracy needs not only to be won abroad, it must be won at home too.
“在俄罗斯入侵乌克兰之后，我们的领导人团结起来捍卫自由民主。但现实是，民主之战不仅需要在国外取胜，还必须在国内取胜。
“在俄罗斯入侵乌克兰之后，我们的领导人团结起来捍卫自由民主。但现实是，民主之战不仅需要在国外取胜，还必须在国内取胜。
“In truth, democracies have not been delivering well for their citizens. Politicians and parties are increasingly out of touch, and the sway of ordinary citizens over public policy has declined. Many are opting out of political participation altogether, while large numbers have lent their support to populist challengers – signs of a protest against ‘democracy as usual’.”
“事实上，民主并没有给公民带来好的结果。政治家和政党越来越脱离现实，普通公民对公共政策的影响力也在下降。很多人选择完全不参与政治，同时也有很多人支持民粹主义挑战者——这是抗议‘一如既往的民主’的迹象。”
“事实上，民主并没有给公民带来好的结果。政治家和政党越来越脱离现实，普通公民对公共政策的影响力也在下降。很多人选择完全不参与政治，同时也有很多人支持民粹主义挑战者——这是抗议‘一如既往的民主’的迹象。”
In the 1990s, the report says that around two-thirds of citizens of western Europe, North America, Northeast Asia and Australasia were satisfied with democracy in their countries. “Today a majority in these regions are dissatisfied. Nowhere has the rise in democratic dissatisfaction been steeper than in Anglo-Saxon democracies.”
该报告称，在上世纪90年代，西欧、北美、东北亚和大洋洲约三分之二的公民对本国的民主感到满意。“如今，这些地区的大多数人都不满意。没有哪个国家比盎格鲁-撒克逊民主国家对民主不满的上升幅度更大。”
该报告称，在上世纪90年代，西欧、北美、东北亚和大洋洲约三分之二的公民对本国的民主感到满意。“如今，这些地区的大多数人都不满意。没有哪个国家比盎格鲁-撒克逊民主国家对民主不满的上升幅度更大。”
Patel said mainstream political parties had too often tried to “imitate the populist agenda of their opponents, rather than to tackle the underlying causes of democratic discontent”.
帕特尔表示，主流政党过于频繁地试图“模仿其对手的民粹主义议程，而不是解决民主不满的根本原因”。
帕特尔表示，主流政党过于频繁地试图“模仿其对手的民粹主义议程，而不是解决民主不满的根本原因”。
“They must now take a long, hard look in the mirror and commit to meaningful reforms that put the voices of citizens back at the centre of democracy. ‘Giving back control’ should be a dividing line at the next election.”
“他们现在必须好好地，认真地照照镜子，致力于有意义的改革，让公民的声音回到民主的中心。‘归还控制权’应该成为下届选举的分界线。”
“他们现在必须好好地，认真地照照镜子，致力于有意义的改革，让公民的声音回到民主的中心。‘归还控制权’应该成为下届选举的分界线。”
评论翻译
很赞 ( 1 )
收藏
Unfortunately, those most dissatisfied are the least likely to go and make the change by voting.
The best way to change and renew the democracy and democratic process is by using the strongest tool it grants to its participants: voting.
If there is no one to vote for, forming a new party that aligns with your and your peer’s views is the next step up in the process. Current right wing and ultra nationalist parties are living example that the “old guard” can be shaken to the core and even dethroned when there is a will.
When there is a will, there is a way.
不幸的是，那些最不满意的人是最不可能通过投票来改变现状的。
改变和更新民主和民主进程的最佳方式是使用它赋予参与者的最强有力的工具——投票。
如果没有人可以让你投票，那么组建一个与你和你的同僚观点一致的新政党是这个过程中的下一步。目前的右翼和极端民族主义政党就是一个活生生的例子，只要有意愿，就可以动摇“老派”的核心，甚至推翻他们的统治。
有志者，事竟成。
Labour haven’t given the impression they’d make the structural changes that would help people though. Under Starmer their whole thing is just “we’ll be more competent and a bit less racist than the Tories”.
Starting a new party could have the same effect UKIP had on the Tories but thats way more effort than simply voting. If you’re trying to get a career on track, it’s hard to do that and get involved with politics at the same time.
工党并没有给人留下他们会进行结构性改革的印象，而结构性改革会帮助人们。在斯塔默的领导下，他们的一切只是“我们会比保守党更有能力，种族主义会少一点”。
组建一个新政党可能会产生与英国独立党对保守党同样的影响，但这要比简单的投票付出更多努力。如果你想让自己的事业走上正轨，那就很难在兼顾政治的同时做到这一点。
When you've basically lost every election or referendum you've ever voted in, this unfortunately isn't exactly surprising.
当你发现你基本上输掉了你投过的每一场选举或公投时，不幸的是，这（对英国民主的信心急剧下降）并不奇怪。
The Tories have been in power for 12 years, 5 of which were a coalition.
Prior to that, Labour were in power for 13 years.
Parties are often in power for over a decade. That is how long it takes for people to realise the current lot are crap, and forget that the ones before were crap too.
保守党已经执政12年，其中5年是联合执政。
在此之前，工党执政了13年。
政党通常掌权超过10年。这就是人们要花多长时间才会意识到当前的一堆垃圾，并忘记之前的那些其实也是垃圾。
That's because they're all crap.
None of the major parties take any meaningful action because they're scared of alienation of their powerbase (which is largely rich, older people).
They don't give a shit about young people because they don't understand how hard life can be with one of the lowest generational wealth distributions this century. They're out of touch. It's not going to end well for any of the major parties if they don't start to sort it out.
那是因为它们都是垃圾。
没有一个主要政党采取任何有意义的行动，因为他们害怕疏远他们的权力基础（主要是富有的老年人）。
他们根本不关心年轻人，因为他们不明白，作为本世纪财富分配最低的一代人，生活有多么艰难。他们失去了联系。如果任何一个主要政党不开始解决这个问题，他们都不会有好结果。
None of the major parties take any meaningful action because they're scared of the media smearing them into oblivion.
Doesn't have to be true, just has to be repeated enough and the idiots will believe it.
Just look at the recent morons who still think Starmer was responsible for letting Jimmy Saville get away with being a nonce.
Most media companies in this country are run by a very small group of rich people who do not want to pay more in taxes and they use their influence to keep it that way. Lots of other large companies follow suit because they too do not want to pay more in taxes.
This isn't a conspiracy theory. People know this is true, they just ignore it because they can't do anything about it.
First past the post system enables these media companies to keep a tight stranglehold on the political system in the UK.
没有一个主要政党采取任何有意义的行动，因为他们害怕媒体把他们抹黑。
不需要是真的，只要重复的次数够多，傻瓜就会相信。
看看最近的那些白痴，他们仍然认为是斯塔默让吉米·萨维尔逃过一劫。
这个国家的大多数媒体公司都是由一小撮不想交更多税的富人经营的，他们利用自己的影响力来维持现状。许多其他大公司也纷纷效仿，因为它们也不想多交税。
这不是阴谋论。人们知道这是真的，但他们只是忽略它，因为他们对此无能为力。
“先通过后发布”制度使这些媒体公司能够牢牢控制英国的政治体制。
The good news is that the soon to be largest generation doesn’t on the whole read news papers and don’t trust them so their stronghold on power will soon diminish to nothing and they have only themselves to blame.
好消息是，即将成为人口最多的一代总的来说不读报纸，也不相信报纸，所以他们的权力堡垒很快就会消失，他们只能怪自己。
Except that a lot of the internet is the new newspapers, and guess what? That's where lots of the younger generation get their "facts" without the critical reasoning abilities to sort fact from fiction.
除了很多互联网都是“新的报纸”，你猜怎么着？这就是许多年轻一代获得“事实”的地方，他们没有批判性的推理能力来区分事实和虚构。
Except this government took us through brexit, 3 different PMs, and partied through a global health pandemic, sleepwalking towards climate catastrophe, isn't really an inconsequential status quo.
除了这届政府带领我们经历了英国脱欧，三个不同的首相，在全球大流行中狂欢，梦游走向气候灾难，这些都不是无关紧要的现状。
Brexit has been a Tory obsession pretty much since we joined in the 70s, so they certainly have to take the blame for that one. Corbyn was largely in support of it, for different reasons, but he wouldn't have called a referendum if he had been in power.
Covid wasn't the government's fault, of course, and they didn't handle it as well as they could have. Would Labour have been much better? Who knows, but it isn't a given. Partygate, while a disgusting abuse of power by the government, is ultimately a distraction from the really harmful things they have done.
On climate change, don't forget that Blair took us into a long and disastrous war that was primarily to protect our oil supply. Things are now getting more urgent, but Labour don't have a fantastic track record in that area.
I'm not trying to defend the Tories. They should never be forgiven for Brexit, and you would hope that Labour would have done more to help the poor and vulnerable in the current situation. But if Labour gain power for the next 10 or 15 years there will still be a lot of shit happening.
自从我们在70年代加入欧盟以来，英国脱欧一直是保守党的困扰，所以他们肯定要为此承担责任。科尔宾在很大程度上是支持它的，出于不同的原因，但如果他当时掌权，是不会发起公投的。
当然，新冠肺炎并不是政府的错，他们没有很好地应对它。工党会更好吗？谁知道呢，但这不是必然的。“派对门”，虽然是政府令人厌恶的滥用权力行为，但最终只是让人们从他们所做的真正有害的事情上分心。
在气候变化问题上，别忘了布莱尔把我们带入了一场漫长而灾难性的战争，而这场战争主要是为了保护我们的石油供应。事情现在变得越来越紧迫，但工党在这方面的记录并不好。
我不是在为保守党辩护。在英国脱欧的问题上，他们永远不应该被原谅，你会希望工党在当前形势下能做得更多，帮助穷人和弱势群体。但如果工党在未来10年或15年掌权，仍然会发生很多糟糕的事情。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Because many of us have tried to secure jobs during economic down turns. Too young to be taken seriously too old for apprenticeships.
Its frustrating as hell if you don't get into the right line of work from the get go.
因为在经济低迷时期，我们很多人都试图保住工作。太年轻会不被重视，太老会无法当学徒。
如果你没有从一开始就进入正确的工作领域，那就像地狱一样令人沮丧。
I'm one such young adult.
I have voted in every general election, local election and referendum that I've been eligible to vote in since 2010 when I became old enough to legally vote. I have always been on the losing side in some way.
At this point I'm honestly less worried about fellow millennials and zoomers refusing to vote, and more about my generation increasingly turning towards civil disobedience and violence. The scenes in Swansea and Bristol last year should honestly be taken as a warning sign of what's to come if the government doesn't change its ways.
我就是这样一个年轻人。
我参加了每一次大选、地方选举和公民投票，从2010年开始，我就有资格投票了，那时我已经到了可以合法投票的年龄。在某些方面，我总是处于失败的一方。
老实说，在这一点上，我不太担心其他千禧一代和超级明星拒绝投票，而是更担心我们这一代人越来越倾向于非暴力反抗和暴力。去年在斯旺西和布里斯托尔的场景应该被诚实地看作是一个警告信号——如果政府不改变它的做法，将会发生什么。
What happened in swansea?
在斯旺西发生了什么？
Rioters crashed a peaceful vigil in Mayhill held to mourn a local man who died from a drug overdose. They threw bricks at houses, set cars on fire, pushed them down the hill and had multiple clashes with police.
Overall 27 people have been charged. Most of the people charged were under-25s.
I don't think there was a particular motive behind Mayhill, but if that's what a bunch of hooligans can cause, imagine what happens when the masses are riled up over legitimate grievances, like... not being able to afford living.
在美希尔，一名当地男子因吸毒过量死亡，人们举行了一场和平的守夜活动，骚乱者们破坏了该活动。他们向房屋投掷砖块，放火焚烧汽车，把他们推下山，并与警方发生多次冲突。
共有27人被指控。大多数被指控的人都在25岁以下。
我不认为美希尔事件背后有什么特别的动机，但如果这就是一群流氓造成的后果，想象一下当群众因为正当的怨愤而愤怒时，会发生什么，比如……无法负担生活费用。
Reminds me of the "London riots," which although may have be instigated as a reaction to the Met Police, quickly became a good excuse to go looting and rioting since people had nothing better to do, and spread across the country.
这让我想起了“伦敦骚乱”，尽管这可能是对伦敦警察的一种回应，但很快成为了一个很好的借口去抢劫和骚乱，因为人们没有更好的事情做，并蔓延到全国各地了。
"Democracy" relies on people making informed choices, which they are most certainly not when it comes to voting these days.
Lies, propaganda and misinformation are key weapons of any right wing political party, and are especially effective in this digital age where people rely on social media to get their "news" and "facts".
Lack of critical thinking and pure spite by voters in some cases is why the Tories continue with their stranglehold on the UK.
Divide and conquer is working a treat.
“民主”依赖于人们在知情的情况下做出选择，而在如今的选举中，他们肯定不知情。
谎言、宣传和不实信息是任何右翼政党的关键武器，在这个人们依靠社交媒体获取“新闻”和“事实”的数字时代尤其有效。
在某些情况下，缺乏批判性思维和选民纯粹的怨恨是保守党继续控制英国的原因。
“分而治之正合我意”。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Isn't this more a case of only liking or having faith in democracy when it gives you the 'right' result?
这难道不是一种“只有当民主给你一个‘正确’的结果时，你才会喜欢或相信它”的情况吗？
You're missing the point of a representative democracy. It's supposed to be REPRESENTATIVE. If everything you've ever voted in has gone the other way, then you are not represented. At that point, how can you expect people to remain engaged in the process? Then of course it only gets worse because the people who should be voting to fix it just give up.
你漏掉了代议制民主的意义。它应该是代表性的。如果你投的所有票都是相反的结果，那么你就没有代表了。在这种情况下，你怎么能期望人们继续参与这个过程呢？当然，情况只会变得更糟，因为应该投票解决问题的人放弃了。
The majority of the country is saying this democracy isn't serving their interests though it's not just young people annoyed they aren't on the right side of elections.
How many people do you need to say it's not democratic before it isn't?
这个国家的大多数人表示，这种民主不符合他们的利益，尽管不仅仅是年轻人为他们没有站在选举的正确一边感到恼火。
在它不民主之前，你需要多少人说它不民主？
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Honestly, it is the young people's fault in a way, I say that as a young person.
We are extremely politically uninvolved, so why should governments focus on a generation that doesn't vote?
The only way to make these changes is to queue outside that polling station at every opportunity.
Our democratic system isn't ideal, not at all, but it is important to remember that by not voting, we will do nothing.
老实说，在某种程度上这是年轻人的错，我作为一个年轻人这么说。
我们非常不参与政治，那么政府为什么要关注不投票的一代人呢？
做出这些改变的唯一方法就是抓住每一个机会在投票站外排队。
我们的民主制度并不理想，一点也不理想，但重要的是要记住，如果不投票，我们将一事无成。
Of course they don't believe in democracy.
Neither side let's the other speak. The left are too left and the right are too right.
Listen and respect each other, if you don't do that, you won't believe in democracy.
I've never voted and never will because I just don't believe the words that come out of any politician's mouth.
I also think I'm just not in a position to vote. I wasn't taught anything about politics. I don't see how someone has the right to vote who should be in power when we don't even know what's going on. How are we not taught about politics at school? It's baffling!
他们当然不相信民主。
哪一方都不让另一方说话。左的太左，右的太右。
倾听和尊重彼此，如果你不这样做，你就不会相信民主。
我从来没有投过票，也永远不会投，因为我不相信任何政客说出来的话。
我也觉得我没资格投票。我没有学过任何政治知识。我不明白当我们还都不明白发生了什么事的时候，人们怎么能被允许投票选出领导人呢。学校怎么不教我们（选举）政治呢？这太令人困惑了！
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Reading the comments, there are so many that are "lost every election I voted in". I think that is the fundamental problem. With FPTP it is seen in terms of winning and losing. We need to get rid of it and move to PR so that everyone's voice is heard and is fairly represented.
看了这些评论，有很多人“输掉了我投的每一场选举”。我认为这才是最根本的问题。在简单多数制中，要么胜利，要么失败。我们需要摆脱它，转向公共关系，这样每个人的声音都能被听到，并得到公平的代表。
It's not democracy, it's "who can spend the most money on making themselves look good in the media". Parties target fence sitting voters and barrage them with Facebook ads and articles and whatever and it 100% results in changes in voting habits. You can pretty much just buy votes, it's just a matter of how much money you throw at marketing yourself as less shit than the other people.
Plus we had the ridiculous situation that led to the coalition where the deciding factor on who would end up in power came down to backroom deals between parties trying to get the numbers to form a majority government. What the fuck is that? How is that democratic?
Then you've got FPTP voting, massive imbalance in voting power dependent on whether you're in a swing constituency or not, whether you're in a large or small population constituency and then the issue of the media in the UK largely being a Tory mouthpiece due to Murdoch and the rest.
And even when democracy does work it's just the tyranny of the largest minority, unless you're dealing with direct democracy like in anarchism.
I also think with the climate crisis, housing crisis, cost of living crisis, fuel crisis and the impact of Brexit people are just focusing on trying to get by and have little time or energy to engage in politics. We are a downtrodden nation and we've largely given up any hope of things ever getting better.
So overall, no fucking surprise that young people have little faith in this countries bullshit "democracy".
这不是民主，而是“谁能花最多的钱让自己在媒体上好看”。政党以中立的选民为目标，用Facebook上的广告、文章和其他东西轰炸他们，这100%地改变了投票习惯。你几乎可以买到选票，就看你能花多少钱把自己推销得比别人好就行了。
此外，在联合政府中，决定谁将最终掌权的决定性因素归结为政党之间的幕后交易，试图获得组成多数政府的人数。这tmd是什么?这怎么能算民主呢？
然后是简单多数制投票，投票权力的巨大不平衡取决于你是否在一个摇摆选区，你是否在一个大的或小的人口选区，然后是英国媒体的问题很大程度上是保守党的喉舌，因为默多克和其他人。
即使民主起作用了，也只是少数人的暴政，除非你面对的是像无政府主义那样的直接民主。
我还认为，随着气候危机、住房危机、生活成本危机、燃料危机和英国脱欧的影响，人们只是专注于设法生存，几乎没有时间或精力参与政治。我们是一个受压迫的国家，我们基本上已经放弃了一切好转的希望。
所以总的来说，年轻人对这个国家的“民主”没什么信心是毫不奇怪的。