|
Posted by gruhn on June 2, 2008, 1:16 pm
> Not necessarily. =A0If there is a *clearly superior* choice available, and=
> people stay home, then they have no right to complain. =A0OTOH, there is
Of the current big three, I think there is a *clearly superior*
choice. Still isn't somebody I would vote _for_.
You can only vote for. You can't vote against. Sure, tactically you
can vote against. Sure, if enough people vote against then the person
elected may be done on the power of that vote. And the person elected?
Will say "look, all these people voted _for_ me. A mandate of the
people." When you cast your vote, you beg that person to have their
way with you. You say "yes, I know you lied to me. I know you will
abuse me. I know you will do none of those things you promised except
those which will hurt me most. And I crave that you have to power to
do those things and all unimagined, unspecified things that you really
intend to do. I vote _for_ those things to happen. I vote _for_ your
abuse. Thank you." Nobody ever says "Wow, not half the people voted
and not half the people who voted voted my name and not half the
people who voted my name voted _for_ me rather than against somebody
else. So at best I've got the support of about one in ten people. My
ideas aren't very popular."
> not always a clearly superior choice available, an done could argue that
> there is *seldom* a clearly superior choice available. =A0By the same
> token, however, there are also many types of representatives, and people
> *can* make their wishes known, but a great many (at least, whome I've
> both heard/read of, and asked directly) can't be bothered taking a few
> minutes to even write a letter. =A0Or pay less than the price of a pack of=
> cigarettes, a fancy coffee, or a beer at the bar, to have recycleables
> picked up as part of trash collection.
>
> OTOH, given that I once directly witnesses a "mother" who refused to pay
> for her child's medicine because it meant she wouldn't have been able to
> afford her friggin' cigarettes, the above comes as no surprise. =A0A great=
> many poeple are loathe to make even minor lifestyle changes, and if those
> are the people who are getting off their duffs and going out to vote,
> well, neither they, nor the poeple who don't vote, should kvetch when
> they get exactly what they either asked for, or allowed others to select
> for them.
>
> Personally, tho', I think that individual action is what matters in the
> end. =A0Too many people say "what can one person do", when the point is
> what one person times X-million can do. =A0The point is that one cannot
> turn over any and all problem-solving to the governemnt. =A0Individual
> action *does* count, when it is additive, as opposed to merely an excuse
> to go with a negative, or even destructive, status-quo.
>
> At the same time, for the governemnt to improve, a big part of what needs
> to change is the quality of people for whom the citizenrty votes, and
> that will remain the same as long as voters continue to support the same
> sorts of people who either exacerbated, or created, so many of the
> current messes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap