So If the majority of Party "A" Want to outlaw the minority party "B", the represenative should vote that way simply because the majority of his constituents want that? First, that makes you a representative of the majority and not the people. Second, it does not take constitution restrictions in account.
That kind of democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
SAM for president of the world!!! He'd certainly have my vote :)
About what candidates should or shouldn't do, maybe a correction is due.
First, it's not just about what the voters want, but about keeping promises and making promises you can keep.
Then (and this is for Brent), it may come out as a surprise, but the theory of democracy is all about majorities. The "3 wolves and a sheep" will apply to any subject being voted.
When the opposite is true (govern by minority), it's no longer a democracy.
The "govern for all" would be an amendment to that theory, from some people that happened to notice that those being oppressed today may govern tomorrow and happen to have their own extreme ideas.
The only reason Democracy works in this country is the Constitution. Without that, the people will either vote themselves "bread and circuses" or become a Tyranny of the majority. I think it is important to remember that we are NOT a Democracy; we are a Constitutional Republic based on Democracy. The difference is what has helped us to become one of the most free people on the planet
- Democracy: majority of votes (from the people) wins.
- Representatives: people elect representatives, and they make (or vote for) the major decisions.
- Charisma: problems are way more complex than the average people can understand. A good candidate will try to explain the problems and the proposed solutions, but sometimes being vague and simplistic is the only way.
- Bias: when the average people have some understanding of the problem, they'll take their own conclusions and stick to them. It's very difficult to show their error.
- Good will: whatever the candidate says or promises, hopefully he'll be well intentioned. Usually, a civilization with a fair level of education and the basic needs covered understands the advantage of ethics and will have a tendency toward good will.
- Corruption: if, in the other hand, the candidate couldn't care less about the people... well, the result is obvious, right? This is the tendency of civilizations where education is low to non-existent and where the basic needs are not covered (food, shelter...). In this situation, selling a vote could make the difference between living another day or not. Corruption thrives in this environment and will try to perpetuate itself.
- Other forces: one single elected person cannot work without the support of other elected people. Sometimes, this requires disgusting compromises. This is not limited to democracy: kings, dictators... also need support to remain in government. The only difference is that the support doesn't necessarily come from elected people in these cases.
- The big picture: in a democratic WORLD, no single country has the right to take one-sided decisions. The ONU is an attempt of making our World a democratic one. When a country by-passes the ONU, it's basically saying "My people do what they want. Stop us if you dare". Not exactly the idea of democracy we tend to think of, is it?
Yeah, big questions. What is the role of government? What are the duties of our representatives? At what point does plurality get overturned by a minority voice? As much as some of these arguments drive me right up the wall I would much rather live in a society that values these discussions instead of one that tries to lull the masses into a false sense of stability. OK, back to Ghost Hunters...it's a good one! Jason lost so much weight!
As SAM is thrust into a political race he doesn't want to be in he ponders the important questions...like what's in it for him?
i could dig free pizza. makes more sense than anything in congress right now.
ReplyDeletebut seriously, you're right. politicians shouldn't do what they want, they should do what we want. thank you.
So If the majority of Party "A" Want to outlaw the minority party "B", the represenative should vote that way simply because the majority of his constituents want that? First, that makes you a representative of the majority and not the people. Second, it does not take constitution restrictions in account.
ReplyDeleteThat kind of democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
SAM for president of the world!!! He'd certainly have my vote :)
ReplyDeleteAbout what candidates should or shouldn't do, maybe a correction is due.
First, it's not just about what the voters want, but about keeping promises and making promises you can keep.
Then (and this is for Brent), it may come out as a surprise, but the theory of democracy is all about majorities. The "3 wolves and a sheep" will apply to any subject being voted.
When the opposite is true (govern by minority), it's no longer a democracy.
The "govern for all" would be an amendment to that theory, from some people that happened to notice that those being oppressed today may govern tomorrow and happen to have their own extreme ideas.
By the way, notice the use of "theory" above :)
The only reason Democracy works in this country is the Constitution. Without that, the people will either vote themselves "bread and circuses" or become a Tyranny of the majority. I think it is important to remember that we are NOT a Democracy; we are a Constitutional Republic based on Democracy. The difference is what has helped us to become one of the most free people on the planet
ReplyDeleteDisclaimer: this is my opinion!
ReplyDeleteThere are many variables at play:
- Democracy: majority of votes (from the people) wins.
- Representatives: people elect representatives, and they make (or vote for) the major decisions.
- Charisma: problems are way more complex than the average people can understand. A good candidate will try to explain the problems and the proposed solutions, but sometimes being vague and simplistic is the only way.
- Bias: when the average people have some understanding of the problem, they'll take their own conclusions and stick to them. It's very difficult to show their error.
- Good will: whatever the candidate says or promises, hopefully he'll be well intentioned.
Usually, a civilization with a fair level of education and the basic needs covered understands the advantage of ethics and will have a tendency toward good will.
- Corruption: if, in the other hand, the candidate couldn't care less about the people... well, the result is obvious, right? This is the tendency of civilizations where education is low to non-existent and where the basic needs are not covered (food, shelter...). In this situation, selling a vote could make the difference between living another day or not. Corruption thrives in this environment and will try to perpetuate itself.
- Other forces: one single elected person cannot work without the support of other elected people. Sometimes, this requires disgusting compromises. This is not limited to democracy: kings, dictators... also need support to remain in government. The only difference is that the support doesn't necessarily come from elected people in these cases.
- The big picture: in a democratic WORLD, no single country has the right to take one-sided decisions. The ONU is an attempt of making our World a democratic one. When a country by-passes the ONU, it's basically saying "My people do what they want. Stop us if you dare". Not exactly the idea of democracy we tend to think of, is it?
Yeah, big questions. What is the role of government? What are the duties of our representatives? At what point does plurality get overturned by a minority voice? As much as some of these arguments drive me right up the wall I would much rather live in a society that values these discussions instead of one that tries to lull the masses into a false sense of stability. OK, back to Ghost Hunters...it's a good one! Jason lost so much weight!
ReplyDelete