Political involvement

Hi KathyAnn

This thread belongs on the "Philosophize" board.

Perhaps one of the Moderators can move it there.

Thanks.

Some people like me are in areas that voting DOESN'T make a difference. Western Quebec is one of them. So is Zimbabwe, the difference is that the employers of a lot of people here (the federal gov) says if they ever separated, they'd lose their jobs INSTANTLY.

Threats work well. And when you have 75 % voting the same way, either you add to their majority or donkey vote. I was too tired to do either, and my situation didn't permiot me to vote that day.

Voting is important and it does make a difference.
I read somewhere that Adolph Hitler won control of the Nazi party by one vote. Bush and Gore came down to very few votes in Florida. In the last elections where I live, two board of aldermen seats were decided by one vote each. A third was won by 18 votes.

I'm a Libertarian and vote in every election. It is true that elections are well-publicized, but most often, it requires vast amounts of money to run an affective campaign. To get elected as a third party candidate when the debate is often restricted to the two major parties in near impossible.

In the last presidential election Harry Browne, Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader received plenty of votes, though not enough to carry even one state. Their efforts are to be commended. I voted for Browne and would again tomorrow.

I'm not advocating my political beliefs to anyone, just saying that there are more than two choices in most elections. If not, we all could use a bit more motivation in running ourselves. I ran for office once and got clobbered by the Republican Party Machine. It was, however, a clean race where my opponent chose not to sling mud.

Mud slinging and apathy have become the rule of the day regarding elections in America. Sad but true.

No, we should not reward apathy. We should, however, get a more level playing field in elections, attempt to include legitimate candidates in the debates and encourage our friends and family who do not vote to do so.

If a person does not vote, they should not complain about elected officials. Just my opinion, what's yours?

Rod, I find myself agreeing with your post.
Yes, we are fortunate to live in a Republic.

Certainly people who do not vote have a right to complain, I just would prefer not to hear them. Maybe I should have said it that way.

Jennifer wrote: emocracy is a stupid form of government. What do you think is a better form? A republic, like the one we live in. ninformed people will usually make populist decisions based on incomplete information. No doubt, but who gets to decide who is "informed" enough to make the decisions for these people?

The uninformed people do. The founding fathers, in their brilliance, made this call. They assumed that smart politicians would be elected and make informed choices.

Recently, I had a long discussion with a foreign national. Her country overwhelmingly was opposed to the war. Her government entered the war anyway. While she wasn't opposed to the Iraq War necessarily, she felt that on such an important issue their PM should let the people vote.

I'm not taking a stand on the war one way or another, only that the right person made the decision in her country, our country, and Canada, which didn't enter the war. When I say the right person, I'm not saying Bush is the best person to make that decision but that, if we do our job right, the U.S. President is. People should vote on few issues. They should elect smart people to make those calls.

Jennifer wrote: Rod, do you advocate changing local and state governments to republics, since you think democracy is stupid?

They already are republican forms of government. We elect governers, state senators, state reps, mayors, city councilmen, and anyone else who runs our government.

I can't think of any government in our country that is democratic and everyone votes on everything.

You know what? This stuff is confusing. Here's something I found on the web:

The United States is a Republic which follows the ideals of a Representative Democracy. Our Electoral College is an example of voting via a Representative Democracy.

http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure1.htm

So, are we not a Representative Democracy? I do understand that under a direct democracy, there are no "middlemen" and each person votes directly for the decision. And, for obvious reasons, our country is far too large for that. But, why can't we be called a Representative Democracy?

Can anyone answer my questions? Why are we not a Representative Democracy?

e are both a Republic and a democracy.

I think the problem is that the word "democracy" entails different varieties. The US is obviously not a direct democracy, yet I see no reason why we can't be called a representative democracy.

As an educated person who has worked on the business side of media, I can tell you that the issue isn't as simple as you make it out to be. It benefits a lot more people than a few CEOs and media conglomerates. Many of the perceived drawbacks consumers sight aren't going to materialize. I don't like it for business reasons, not consumer reasons.

Jennifer, a republic is basically a representative democracy.