Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Democracy / Voting - Overrated?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Democracy / Voting - Overrated?

    It's been said that you only get out of democracy what you put into it and I totally with that and if you want to get the most out of it, you have to actively participate

    But that entails a lot more than most people think.

    As far as voting goes, it's certainly important but on its own it's not enough. Here in Canada, we've had abysmal voter turn out at both federal and provincial elections in recent years. I think voter turn out in the last federal election was around 60%. This kind of apathy is all too prevalent. But one of my biggest peeves have come from some people who do vote but harshly criticize others who express cynicism and don't see any point in voting at all. These voters often have a self-righteous, holier-than-thou-attitude towards the cynics and will typically say something like "you should be ashamed...soldiers gave their lives in two world wars to protect your right to vote and if everyone had your attitude, we'd be much worse of...blah...blah...blah...." The irony of it is that it's these self-righteous types are often every bit as responsible for the sad state of democracy. They've somehow got it into their heads that all they have to do is show up at a polling station every four years, put a little 'X' on a ballot and think they've done their democratic duty and their job is done...until next election.

    A few years back, I used to subscribe to a NG and we were talking about this issue and I said something lamenting how the days when politicians actually did what their constituents wanted them to are gone. And his rebuttal was one I'll never forget. I'm glad I had the foresight to save it:

    "In the old days, people got involved with their parties and participated. That's how they were in a position to get them to do what they wanted.

    Nowadays, people sit on their sofa griping and don't get up to do their jobs - which is to participate directly with their political parties and make sure that policy reflects their wishes.

    I have no idea when it became common to think 'my job as a citizen to protect my democracy is confined to showing up once every 4 years to vote', but it's completely bonkers.

    It would be like walking into a restaurant, demanding the chef to send you whatever he thought you wanted without your ordering, and then be annoyed it's not really what you felt like eating.

    Our job begins long before an election and continues long after. We've forgotten that. Now the politicians get to choose what we're going to have to eat, and we're shocked when it turns out to be a dog's breakfast. Who's screwing up? We are!"
    Smart guy.

    I still vote, but I'm not going to criticize anyone who chooses not to, since there are far more ways to affect meaningful change in the system.

  • #2
    For me it depends on what exactly the person in question is refusing to do. If they refuse to vote for president and then complain that they're guy lost, fuck 'em. If they complain that doing anything whatsoever is pointless just because, fuck 'em.

    However, I have met some people who were plenty active in support of their party and for a variety of valid reasons couldn't or didn't vote. Others may not have been active with a political party, but were active in political interest groups, which is similar enough to count in my book. But if you put all that effort in to convince others to vote for one side or the other, not doing so yourself smacks somewhat of either waste or hypocrisy.

    Then there are those who get involved in the system in some other way than the elections, by attending city council meetings, sending correspondence and the like. This also counts as 'something'.

    It's just that the people who don't get involved in any way but insist on bitching about how things turned out understandably annoy the hell out of the people who went to the trouble to do so. Anyone who bitches and moans about how McKain should have won, but refused to do anything to make that happen, should STFU. Also, anyone celebrating about how Obama won without having anything to do with it should STFU.

    NOTE: God damned 'old days' statements. I get that people want to note a deficiency, but why does it ALWAYS have to be in the context of society slipping off the edge of decency? Is voter turnout actually lower? are people actually less involved? *scurries off to get some numbers*
    Last edited by Wingates_Hellsing; 10-06-2010, 07:13 PM.
    All units: IRENE
    HK MP5-N: Solving 800 problems a minute since 1986

    Comment


    • #3
      South Park described democracy pretty well. You have two options: a giant douche or a turd sandwich.

      The people who want it generally are the ones who wouldn't make the best politicians. The problem is the people who'd make the best politicians don't want it.
      Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by The Shadow View Post
        It's been said that you only get out of democracy what you put into it and I totally with that and if you want to get the most out of it, you have to actively participate

        But that entails a lot more than most people think.

        As far as voting goes, it's certainly important but on its own it's not enough. Here in Canada, we've had abysmal voter turn out at both federal and provincial elections in recent years. I think voter turn out in the last federal election was around 60%. This kind of apathy is all too prevalent. But one of my biggest peeves have come from some people who do vote but harshly criticize others who express cynicism and don't see any point in voting at all. These voters often have a self-righteous, holier-than-thou-attitude towards the cynics and will typically say something like "you should be ashamed...soldiers gave their lives in two world wars to protect your right to vote and if everyone had your attitude, we'd be much worse of...blah...blah...blah...." The irony of it is that it's these self-righteous types are often every bit as responsible for the sad state of democracy. They've somehow got it into their heads that all they have to do is show up at a polling station every four years, put a little 'X' on a ballot and think they've done their democratic duty and their job is done...until next election.

        A few years back, I used to subscribe to a NG and we were talking about this issue and I said something lamenting how the days when politicians actually did what their constituents wanted them to are gone. And his rebuttal was one I'll never forget. I'm glad I had the foresight to save it:



        Smart guy.

        I still vote, but I'm not going to criticize anyone who chooses not to, since there are far more ways to affect meaningful change in the system.
        Very well put. I'm wondering though why do you think there is so much apathy over the currrent political system. What is the reason that some of us, as social beings, feel that voting is essential and others feel it is not?

        On a side not, George Carlin had a counter arguement against the "You didn't vote so you have no right to complain" that was not only amusing but called into question where responsebility for the actions of the government lies? With the individuals elected or with the people who voted them into office in the first place? I'm not sure which.....

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk&p

        I disagree with George that this is the best we can do though. I agree with Greenday that the people who would make the best leaders are apathic about getting into public office. Why? I'm sure they all have their reasons, but I suspect that it boils down to that they do not believe, in the face of the information they are presented with, that even if they managed to get elected to public office that they could do any good, that their hands would be tied, that they would be barred from implementing meaningful and lasting changes for the good of the community. I suspect that they feel it's best, or at least a more efficient use of their time and energy, to use the other ways of affecting meaningful change that you mentioned.

        I think that what George is pointing out in his comedy show here, is that the virtues that logically need to be possessed by an effective leader (at least in my opinion): good judgement, humility, compassion, truthfulness, honor, perseverence, self-sacrifice, bravery...... These don't seem to be the qualities that the majority of the voting public take into consideration when making their choice. But rather those candidates who are adept in telling the public what they want to hear, in selling themselves to the public as it were, are those who are most likely to be elected. This is not necessary a bad thing in and of itself. A good leader necessarily needs to be an effective orator, to convince his people that a particular course of action is the right course, to convey his or her thoughts as to why they support a given course of action. But that should not be the sole criteria upon which a leader is chosen.

        Anyway Shadow, I'm wondering what your thoughts are.
        "Sometimes the way you THINK it is, isn't how it REALLY is at all." --St. Orin--

        Comment


        • #5
          My only comment on this right now is to offer this quote from Rush (the band):

          If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
          ^-.-^
          Faith is about what you do. It's about aspiring to be better and nobler and kinder than you are. It's about making sacrifices for the good of others. - Dresden

          Comment

          Working...
          X