Political involvement

*Hello everyone.

*This isn't hair related per se but it is political, so I thought I would just give everyone a gentle reminder.

*A democracy only works well , and for everyday people, if people get involved in politics.
*Less than half of the American voting age population votes in your average election. *Therefore monied people, lobbyists, the rich, and special interests,( liberal and conservative), have too much say in how our country is governed.
*In the long run this isn't good. Only in recent decades has voter participation fallen to such low levels.
*It is important that ordinary citizens not only vote, which is a nice privledge for us to have, but for everyday people to get involved with the political party of their choice, to assure that good people run for office and get on the ballot.
*Those of us who live in democracies are fortunate people. Let's make certain that our political process does not become too corrupt or too unrepresentative of what is good for middle class/working class people, small business people and our country.
Whether you are a Democrat. a Republican, or an Independent or belong to another political party, please get involved!!! It does make a difference.
Thanks !!!

Hi KathyAnn

This thread belongs on the "Philosophize" board.

Perhaps one of the Moderators can move it there.

Thanks.

>>>>*Less than half of the American voting age population votes in your average election. *Therefore monied people, lobbyists, the rich, and special interests,( liberal and conservative), have too much say in how our country is governed.

Why award apathy?

Is anyone preventing the apathetic voters from voting? It seems to me that elections are generally well-publicized. If someone doesn't care enough about how the country is run to vote (polls are open to 9pm in my area, to help accommodate those who have to work late), then why should we accommodate those people?

If one does absolutely nothing (by not voting) and expects that the world will turn the way he wants, that self-absorbent person will be sorely disappointed that life doesn't appear the way he wants when he snaps his fingers.

Opportunity may knock, but it goes nowhere if we don't answer the door!

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.

[QUOTE=Kintaro] Some people like me are in areas that voting DOESN'T make a difference. [/QUOTE]

I was under the impression that Canada's prime minister and the Cabinet members are voted into office by the citizens of Canada.

Is that incorrect?

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?

The U.S. is a society where people not only have the right to vote, but the right not to vote. I'm proud to be in a country where people have the right to be apathetic. Saying people have to vote puts us in a police state.

I'm glad not voting doesn't take away their right to complain. Personally, I hate complainers and like doers. While they may not be justified in complaining, they have the right.

I'm glad they don't vote. Democracy is a stupid form of government. Uninformed people will usually make populist decisions based on incomplete information. Most bond issues and propositions that are put to a popular vote are voted down because people look at the bottom line of spending money and don't analyze the referendum.

Democracy results in inaction and inertia. Fortunately, the U.S. isn't a democracy, but a republic. Look at some of the people we elect democratically. Some are dishonest and others are idiots. Still, the hope is the good professional people who should know more than I do are running things things well rather than the masses.

So, no I don't think everyone should get involved. They have the right not to do so.

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.

[QUOTE]emocracy is a stupid form of government.[/QUOTE]

What do you think is a better form?


[QUOTE]ninformed people will usually make populist decisions based on incomplete information.[/QUOTE]

No doubt, but who gets to decide who is "informed" enough to make the decisions for these people?

[QUOTE=Jennifer] [QUOTE]emocracy is a stupid form of government.[/QUOTE]

What do you think is a better form?

A republic, like the one we live in.

[QUOTE]ninformed people will usually make populist decisions based on incomplete information.[/QUOTE]

No doubt, but who gets to decide who is "informed" enough to make the decisions for these people?
[/QUOTE]

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.

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

[QUOTE=Jennifer] Rod, do you advocate changing local and state governments to republics, since you think democracy is stupid?
[/QUOTE]

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.

I think we should clarify the terms republic and democracy.

A democracy is a government in which the people hold the ruling power either directly or through elected representatives (what we do at the local and state levels -- we vote directly for the governor and representatives).

A republic is a nation in which the supreme power rests in all the citizens entitled to vote (the electorate) and is exercised by representatives elected, directly or indirectly, by them and responsible to them.

So, is a democracy where people vote on each and every issue? The difference between the two seems subtle.

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?

Like the Pledge of Allegiance says ...
"And to the Republic for which it stands."

We are a Republic.

Yes, the differences are subtle, but vital.
Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and the rest of our founding fathers were very smart to set up America as they did.

We're free to speak our minds, believe in God or choose not to do so, and much more. We do get the people in office we vote for. I think our process is the best there is, though if we don't vote we get elected officials who are not necessarily the best example of who we are collectively. Good process, bad results.

I won't insult Bush, even though I didn't vote for him, he did get more than 271 Electoral College votes. So he won. The process of a Republic works. We just need to get more people involved.

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

We are both a Republic and a democracy.



All Kathy was saying is that everyday people should get involved in politics, so that politics won't be run entirely by the rich and wealthy special interests.

Noboby has to vote. I sometimes don't.
Of course we have the right to be apathetic and non-involved.
But if we don't get involved then we have no influence obviously.

[QUOTE]e are both a Republic and a democracy.[/QUOTE]

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.

Perhaps because our representatives often make decisions that benefit the lobbyists that stuff their pockets and not on behalf of what's best for the public?

A quick and easy example is that stupid media deregulation that passed a few weeks ago. Any person educated on the ways of the media will tell you that's NOT a good thing for anyone but the few CEOs of the few media conglomerates.

And HeadBoy! I just wanted to shout out I'm a Libertarian, too!
The FCC is one of the only areas where I favor governmental control.

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.

Howdy SuperGrover!
It is cool to see my fellow Libertarian proud to call themselves as such. We're a small but growing bunch.
The fastest growing party in America.

The government that governs best governs least.

That's my opinion, Thomas Jefferson's actually, what's everyone elses?

Howdy SuperGrover!
It is cool to see my fellow Libertarian proud to call themselves as such. We're a small but growing bunch.
The fastest growing party in America.

The government that governs best governs least.

That's my opinion, Thomas Jefferson's actually, what's everyone elses?

Posted twice. I hate when that happens.

Sorry everybody.

Thank you Kathy Ann for bringing up this topic.
I have read on your posts that you are a lebian woman in a relationship with another woman here, a bi-sexual woman Tina. Hi to you both.

I am a gay male in the process of becoming a woman. I wear my hair long mid-back, jet black hair. I dress as a female. Have already had my breasts done.
I am also Asian(Chinese-American).
As a sexual and ethnic minority I do feel it is important to vote.

Hello Girl Tia.

Nice to have you on the board.

Best wishes on your transition. Your hair must be beautiful. Asians have such lovely hair!