1  2  3  Next

Choice of title a tad over the edge, but let me ask a question:

(disclaimer: I'm not a political person, and I can't make specific points on this subject, because I don't know enough about our political system. This is my request for enlightenment, because I can see that something's wrong with it. If this point has been made before, just point me in te right direction)

The problems people have with politicians seem to be a direct cause of democracy; that is, broken promises, leadership flaws, etc etc etc. Insincerity seems to be proportional to how far up the totem pole one is.. The more people politicians have to convince to like them, or the more clout they carry, the more bland and uninspired they seem to be. I always wondered why the PhDs in political science that you see in the media weren't running the country; they seem to know what's going on.

My only explanation is that when they're dealing with a small group of people, as the political analysts would, they can say what they mean, because if someone objects, they have a chance to confront the objection and clarify their position right away. You can't do that when a thousand, or a million, people have issues with your statements. So what do they do up at the top? They bitch and argue with each other and set each other as far apart as possible, so voters have to decide based on extreme viewpoints that would never last longer than the campaign (no one is ever as far left or right as they say they are once they get elected). You get people voting one way or the other because of single issues like abortion or the slew of other decisions which aren't even an indication of the parties ability to govern.

My solution? Remove the temptation to lie and coerce people into voting for you by having the country's leader chosen by representatives of the population. Instead of weeks of photo-ops and putting up signs on lawns, this group would sit down and debate/argue/discuss the leaders in question, and decide on the best one.

For every other job in Canada, we trust the experts to hire the best people; I don't vote for fire fighters or school principals. Why? Because I don't know what makes a good fire fighter or principal. They get the job because they're the most qualified, not because they put up the most posters around town.

I'm pretty sure the general population doesn't know what makes a good leader of a country. I also don't think my representative's stance on abortion decides whether he's a good leader, either.

Anyway, there's people here who have more authority on this stuff, so I'll sit back and hopefully learn something

   

Huh

   

Are you dissatisfied with Democracy in general or just the electoral process in Canada? or do you want Communism to control all state matters in which equalization will be for the people?

   

Knew this wouldn't be a good idea...

Okay, here's the two main points I was attempting to make:

-The electoral system becomes more and more of a popularity contest the more removed the politicians are from the people

-most people do not have enough information to be able to vote effectively

I mean, I'm an educated person, but I don't pretend to know anything about how to run a country, and I'd have to spend months studying each candidate to feel comfortable with that decision. Other people are less careful about it obviously, but I like to know exactly what I'm signing up for. I'm saying there should be someone to study for me fulltime, and give me a report of their findings, and have the official chosen that way. That way, we aren't relying on a bunch of slogans and slander and a few hours of debate.

Maybe the solution is getting too close to communism, which I know doesn't work off paper...

   

That reeks of corruption. Basically you would have these "studiers" getting paid big-time to sway the votes horrifically.

Voting isn't that hard.

   

I know voting isn't hard... I've started voting ever since they started the funding-per-vote. But what are you voting for? Politicians are great at getting votes, but they don't know what to do with them. I don't know how you're supposed to get around their facade, and find out what kind of person they really are. I feel even more discouraged about it because most people are voting for the facade.

   

Politicians are swaying the votes as it is, only with empty promises instead of money.

   

Then why is it that politicians actually do get stuff done and people applaud them for it? To your way of thinking, democracies must be stagnant.

   

Ah... ol' Aristotle seems to have a thing or two to say about it.... I'll do some reading and stop bothering you

   

All I know is that it seems like all the smart people are the ones criticizing the people who run the show... but, they don't have a seat to lose...

   

blue_nose actually has a point. The original American system that was adopted follows his logic completely.

They figured then with most states' populations running on either side of a million people, that was about as large a community you could have where all the socially & politically active people in the community would know each other.

The Electors of the Electoral College would be a group of leading citizens of all the states and would elect two people to be President and Veep.

It was supposed to be non-partisan and deliberative.

What killed that idea, of course, was rabble-rousing populists who were damned if they were going allow the Electors to choose who was going to be president like it was an afternoon tea.

Myself, I always root for the rabble. They're always more entertaining and it's fun when they spill things.



.

   

Just because they're "smart" doesn't mean they are more capable than an average person in deciding on a politician. There are biases all the way up the intellectual pyramid.

   

Yes, I guess my point is that there would be appointed people to chose the leader... I guess the people who had a problem with this would just have to join the committee and engage in an indepth look at the candidates.

I did a study of this during the first federal election that I was legal to vote... I asked everyone I knew if they voted, and how they made up their minds... this was for my interest only, so I didn't record anything, but I found exactly what I was afraid of; that most people decided how to vote based on how their family voted, if they knew one of the candidates, or on a party basis alone. If, say, 75% of the votes are cast this way (I don't think that's an unreasonable estimate), it reduces the effectiveness of the educated votes.

   

I'm not saying only smart people would get a vote (how would you quantify that kind of intelligence?). I'm saying only the people who actually care enough to make it their job should get to vote.

   

You have to get out there and get as much information on the party, the people, the politicians as you can. What you're doing is a good start, and far more than most people do. The more information you can gather, from TV, newspapers, radio, the internet, public forums, talking to politicians, talking to other people (like you are doing here) is the best way to make an informed decision. For most people, it might simply be: I like what's happened the last four years, let's keep it up. Or the opposite. What's happened the last four years? I'll vote for those other guys.
In the last BC election (these are certainly my opinions) it appeared that most people were happy with what had been happening under the Liberals. Most a lot of people were unhappy. The Liberals had a 77-2 majority before the election and came out of it with a 46-33 majority. A 77-2 majority isn't good for democracy because there are no checks and balances on the government, they can do as they please. They only have to worry about the next election, and that can be years away. 46-33 wont ensure a more democratic process, but it SHOULD be better for the province. Like a lot of people I wonder what ever happened to politics, it's always been a bit of a sham, but now it seems like a complete joke. It's easy to allow cynicism to take over but we shouldn't. The last BC election I voted NDP only because I was confident the Liberals would win the election and I wanted to my bit to balance the legislature.
But, Good work to you for trying to be an informed voter. Democracies need, and depend on, voters like you.

   

1  2  3  Next