Democracy (Various wonderings and pet peeves)
Well it's been a while since I've taken some time to write one of these... lately my insomnia has been used to do other things... not necessarily useful things... but other...
I don't know why this popped up into my head but I was thinking about elections and about how people on an individual basis treat democracy. I've noticed that many, many people fault democracy on the assumption that the best person (ie the person they want in.) should win... Or don't vote because they don't think their vote will count.... But really democracy isn't about the individual... it really isn't... its about the group (whether it should be or not). That's just the way it works... whoever the MOST people believe are the best choice is the one who is given the opportunity to prove it... This does not mean that anyone has to be necessarily happy with the outcome... I know that on numerous occasions I have not been necessily happy about the winner....
But when I hear people going on about how the "wrong" people always get in... or some such... it just annoys me.... and its not really the person that annoys me... or the fact that they take that stand, so much as its that this assumption is so prevalent in everyone I talk to.
... But that again brings me to another point.... it is the very reason that democracy is a system focused on the GROUP that the INDIVIDUAL has to participate.... If only half the people vote (a number that has been actually higher than in many elections) and the votes are close, for the simplicity of hte math at 12:00 we'll say half, all that tells us is that one quarter of the people want that person in.... This value is then extrapolated to the rest of the population... And while it is possible that it could reflect the population as a whole it certainly isn't garaunteed...
Democracy... I believe works... whether it is the ultimate system or not is a pointless question... there is no system of democracy that is the democratic pinnacle... Canada's system is VASTLY different then that of the United States... and both of them are immessurably different systesm then... say Sweden.
There are different subcategories of democracy... for heaven's sake: Proportional representation, Parlimentary... etc... And within each of these subcategories are multiple other subcategories that in turn can each be implimented in different ways...
...And it is this myriad of different possiblilities of system and implementation that makes it, shall we say impossible, to implement democracy by imposing a system upon a society... in fact it flies in the face of the principle of democracy - that it will be representative of A GROUP. What works well in one country will not necessarily work in another... the functioning, stable democracies of the world have all settled into their own unique form of democracy over the years each coming up with a system that works for them.... while this system may work just as well in another society this cannot be taken for granted....
In societies where we see rapid, turbulent, imposed etc.... change in the current system of government we'll often see that reflected in the aftermath of said change.... where the society takes years to recover from the change... and often has to settle into something completely different than the structure that first tried to impose itself... Its like, for example the different forms of a compound... under some conditions (ie high pressure and heat) they are very stable... but at others (low pressure and heat) they are unstable and will revert to a more stable form....
I don't know... and I certainly don't know that democracy is the BEST system... I don't think you can really say there is any BEST system in the real world or an ideal one... there are simply models... some of which seem to some to be better than others...
Personally, I like democracy... I think its a system that works (for the most part) but I think that people need to remember that democracy only works so long as they take an active roll... they don't need to necessarily place themselves in the centre of politics... but they need to weigh the candidates... they need to look at the platforms... they have to make sure that they are informed enough about the person and party they are voting for. And then MAKE A DECISION!!!! and then ACT ON THAT DECISION!!!!
Many people take the stance that the most important point to get across is to vote... but I would prefer that another message is sent... the most important thing is that people vote for those they think will represent them the best!
Putting a mark on some piece of paper because you recognize a name is not enough... that will undermine democracy just as surely as NOT voting will...If someone gets elected on the basis of "Ooh...ooh name I recognize!" as opposed to "ooh...ooh! platform I agree with!"... well... I think the problem is clear enough...
I'm not expecting... or even asking people to do in depth research on every candidate... let's face it who has that sort of time... but at least know how the person you are trying to elect stands on the issues...
You can vote by party... you can vote by person... It matters not to me as both are valid options each with their share of pros and cons... (Although people who vote for one party because "I'll never vote [insert party name here]" do annoy me slightly... though at least they have a basis for their decision and are voting I guess... just so long as they keep in mind that parties change over time as different issues become more important)
And my last pet peeve about how some treat elections.... is when people try to turn it into a religous argument... It isn't... its a political one... When we start imposing beliefs held by a certain religion through politics we're undoing arguablly one of the first steps towards democracy and multiculturalism... The beliefs may be wrong... they may be right... They may have no wrong or right... But when politics becomes a religious game... this blurs the edges of both... it removes the separation of church from state... a separation I think is important, particularly as there are so many different religions and religous beliefs out there...
I don't know... what I do know is that there are many people who will disagree with me on this... and they are free to... I am certainly not any sort of authority on this sort of thing... and I am no more qualified than anyone else to decide how things should work... But morality, I think, is something that each person must come to for themselves, whether they follow the guidlines that a religion can offer... whether it is simply accepting guidlines of a society...or...whatever... I don't think that the state should dictate it... fine, yes laws about murder, and the such... but here we have one of those grey areas... the blurring between morality and the government's purpose (ie maintaining order and preventing the fracturing of a society <-- you could of course argue this... but then you could argue anything I've said in this ramble)
I don't know... And that's just the long and short of it... I don't know... and I don't think anyone really does... or can for that matter...
I don't know why this popped up into my head but I was thinking about elections and about how people on an individual basis treat democracy. I've noticed that many, many people fault democracy on the assumption that the best person (ie the person they want in.) should win... Or don't vote because they don't think their vote will count.... But really democracy isn't about the individual... it really isn't... its about the group (whether it should be or not). That's just the way it works... whoever the MOST people believe are the best choice is the one who is given the opportunity to prove it... This does not mean that anyone has to be necessarily happy with the outcome... I know that on numerous occasions I have not been necessily happy about the winner....
But when I hear people going on about how the "wrong" people always get in... or some such... it just annoys me.... and its not really the person that annoys me... or the fact that they take that stand, so much as its that this assumption is so prevalent in everyone I talk to.
... But that again brings me to another point.... it is the very reason that democracy is a system focused on the GROUP that the INDIVIDUAL has to participate.... If only half the people vote (a number that has been actually higher than in many elections) and the votes are close, for the simplicity of hte math at 12:00 we'll say half, all that tells us is that one quarter of the people want that person in.... This value is then extrapolated to the rest of the population... And while it is possible that it could reflect the population as a whole it certainly isn't garaunteed...
Democracy... I believe works... whether it is the ultimate system or not is a pointless question... there is no system of democracy that is the democratic pinnacle... Canada's system is VASTLY different then that of the United States... and both of them are immessurably different systesm then... say Sweden.
There are different subcategories of democracy... for heaven's sake: Proportional representation, Parlimentary... etc... And within each of these subcategories are multiple other subcategories that in turn can each be implimented in different ways...
...And it is this myriad of different possiblilities of system and implementation that makes it, shall we say impossible, to implement democracy by imposing a system upon a society... in fact it flies in the face of the principle of democracy - that it will be representative of A GROUP. What works well in one country will not necessarily work in another... the functioning, stable democracies of the world have all settled into their own unique form of democracy over the years each coming up with a system that works for them.... while this system may work just as well in another society this cannot be taken for granted....
In societies where we see rapid, turbulent, imposed etc.... change in the current system of government we'll often see that reflected in the aftermath of said change.... where the society takes years to recover from the change... and often has to settle into something completely different than the structure that first tried to impose itself... Its like, for example the different forms of a compound... under some conditions (ie high pressure and heat) they are very stable... but at others (low pressure and heat) they are unstable and will revert to a more stable form....
I don't know... and I certainly don't know that democracy is the BEST system... I don't think you can really say there is any BEST system in the real world or an ideal one... there are simply models... some of which seem to some to be better than others...
Personally, I like democracy... I think its a system that works (for the most part) but I think that people need to remember that democracy only works so long as they take an active roll... they don't need to necessarily place themselves in the centre of politics... but they need to weigh the candidates... they need to look at the platforms... they have to make sure that they are informed enough about the person and party they are voting for. And then MAKE A DECISION!!!! and then ACT ON THAT DECISION!!!!
Many people take the stance that the most important point to get across is to vote... but I would prefer that another message is sent... the most important thing is that people vote for those they think will represent them the best!
Putting a mark on some piece of paper because you recognize a name is not enough... that will undermine democracy just as surely as NOT voting will...If someone gets elected on the basis of "Ooh...ooh name I recognize!" as opposed to "ooh...ooh! platform I agree with!"... well... I think the problem is clear enough...
I'm not expecting... or even asking people to do in depth research on every candidate... let's face it who has that sort of time... but at least know how the person you are trying to elect stands on the issues...
You can vote by party... you can vote by person... It matters not to me as both are valid options each with their share of pros and cons... (Although people who vote for one party because "I'll never vote [insert party name here]" do annoy me slightly... though at least they have a basis for their decision and are voting I guess... just so long as they keep in mind that parties change over time as different issues become more important)
And my last pet peeve about how some treat elections.... is when people try to turn it into a religous argument... It isn't... its a political one... When we start imposing beliefs held by a certain religion through politics we're undoing arguablly one of the first steps towards democracy and multiculturalism... The beliefs may be wrong... they may be right... They may have no wrong or right... But when politics becomes a religious game... this blurs the edges of both... it removes the separation of church from state... a separation I think is important, particularly as there are so many different religions and religous beliefs out there...
I don't know... what I do know is that there are many people who will disagree with me on this... and they are free to... I am certainly not any sort of authority on this sort of thing... and I am no more qualified than anyone else to decide how things should work... But morality, I think, is something that each person must come to for themselves, whether they follow the guidlines that a religion can offer... whether it is simply accepting guidlines of a society...or...whatever... I don't think that the state should dictate it... fine, yes laws about murder, and the such... but here we have one of those grey areas... the blurring between morality and the government's purpose (ie maintaining order and preventing the fracturing of a society <-- you could of course argue this... but then you could argue anything I've said in this ramble)
I don't know... And that's just the long and short of it... I don't know... and I don't think anyone really does... or can for that matter...
posted by Old Earth Accretionist | 11:18 p.m.
|
0 comments
