Guilty.
I hold my hands up.
I am an adult.
They asked me to chose.
One said they would give more to schools and hospitals and something freaky thing like the economy.The other said they would give more to schools and hospitals and something freaky like like the economy.
I am not daft.Why should I waste my vote.We live in a demecrocy,don't you see?So I voted.
Don't you see?
I voted for more of my money to go schools and the Health Service.
They claim I gave them the mandate to bomb Iraqie kids.
What power we have in a tick.
Linda
Originally posted by SchliemannTHIS SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY
Maybe I am the daft one here..but none of this made any sense. Who says you are bombing Iraqi kids? And wait...you live in England...they have learned of democracy over there?? That is a new one on me 😀
hehehehe Just kidding to all my British friends.
Dave
Linda.
Originally posted by missleadI would take it seriously if you would explain who "they" are. The whole idea of war has everyone not really knowing where to turn or what to do...so please Linda maybe if you can expand upon what you are trying to say then the rest of us will be on the same page as you and comment accordingly...other wise we have to search in the dark for the total meaning behind what you are trying to say.
THIS SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY
Linda.
Dave
(still confused on the matter)
Originally posted by missleadJoke or no joke, it's a little rich from the resident of a country whose supposedly elected President wasn't actually the guy with the most votes.
THIS SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY
Linda.
That said, I'd be the first to admit that the British electoral system is far from perfect.
Rich.
Originally posted by missleadActually, although Schielmann didn't mean it seriously, there is a serious issue here. When he
THIS SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY
suggested that England didn't have a democracy, there was a bit of truth to it: Like in America, it
isn't truly a democracy but a Republic. We empower officials who we believe will best represent our
views but are not obligated to do so. Voting is the means by which we say that the person is the
best representative of our interests.
To that end, elected officials often have a moral duty (but not a legal one) to uphold the will of the
people even when they disagree. However, this is a very gray line that politicians walk -- what
about when the majority of people didn't want to free slaves or allow women to vote -- and often
making unpopular decisions is political sucide, even when morally just.
Ultimately, the people in a Republic need to trust, even blindly, in an unpopular decision. There
may be things we don't know, factors that we, as somewhat less well educated politically, are not
able to weigh accurately. Maybe our governments truly do know something critical about Iraq.
Maybe the English-American relationship hinges on making difficult decisions together and not
doing so would result in the failing of one or both of those governemnts. (Not that I believe this is
necessarily true.)
For example, that France's staunch opposition to war is a "moral" decision is completely
disingenuous; France has political motivations, particularly as it pertains emering as a leader in the
European Union. Germany, with its weakened political system needs to ally with France in the
hopes of getting some crumbs that fall from the table. This has resulted the the appalling
decision to not assist their sister in the E.U., Turkey, in defending herself against possible strikes.
It is not much different than the sorts of wars that occurred in the 10th-18th centuries. The French
would ally themselves with the English just long enough to defeat the Germans, who would beg
the Spanish for help only to stab them in the back 30 years later by allying with the French, etc.
etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam.
That need for the people to trust in a decision I mentioned above however has been increasingly
violated over time (at least the news coverage has gotten so intense that we hear about it). We
have been repeatedly asked to follow the decision of our leaders only to discover that the leaders
themselves had private interests, not the good of the people, at heart. This discourages us in the
face of decisions before us now: how do we know that Blair/Bush are really interested in creating
an atmosphere of peace and saftey for the good of the world (through war?)? How do we know that
other interests, such as oil or Western cultural dominance or anti-Islamism aren't factors in the
decisions that our elected leaders make?
The fact is: we don't, not for sure. And that is why we shouldn't really take it so hard and
personally when the people we elect behave in a manner inconsistant with our or the public's
opinion. We voted for a representative, yes, but it is certainly NOT a democracy.
Incidentally, I believe that people who do not excercise their right to vote have NO right to
complain about politics, taxes, etc.. We struggled to defeat the evils of monarchy to set up
system of government we have (which, with all of its pitfalls, could be much worse). People who
say "politics don't affect me" make a mockery of all of the blood spilled to get the freedoms we
enjoy and take for granted. The Iraqi people didn't vote Sadaam Hussein into power; they literally
have no say in the matter, whether they want to or not. We do, and when we choose not to vote,
we say "I don't care what decisions my government official makes."
End of rant.
Nemesio
Originally posted by richhoeyWe have taken alot of heat over that whole thing...but at least I did vote...and I voted for the other guy who didn't really have a shot.
Joke or no joke, it's a little rich from the resident of a country whose supposedly elected President wasn't actually the guy with the most votes.
That said, I'd be the first to admit that the British electoral system is far from perfect.
Rich.
Dave
Overall I very much agree, but you are being a little generous when you say Britain is a republic. It isn't - it's a constitutional monarchy without a written constitution, which I assure you is considerably worse. The weaknesses in the system have been scarily exposed by Tony Blair, who with incredile arrogance is using the Royal Perogative to effectively give himself Presidential powers and seems to assume he is not accountable to Parliament.
I also think that while it's very important to vote, we shouldn't discount the views of those that don't. At the moment, in Britain for instance, we have a ruly party and an official opposition which both support war. It's in these situations that people who may not have bothered to vote may still voice their concerns in other ways - for instance by protest marching.
Rich.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by nemesioIf you feel your views are not represented by any of the political parties, you have every right to complain.
I believe that people who do not excercise their right to vote have NO right to complain about politics, taxes, etc.. We struggled to defeat the evils of monarchy to set up system of government we have (which, with all of its pitfalls, could be much worse). People who
say "politics don't affect me" make a mockery of all of the blood spilled to get the fre ...[text shortened]... en we choose not to vote,
we say "I don't care what decisions my government official makes."
Don't vote for people you don't believe in - they will use your vote as an endorsement of their policies.
I wonder how many of the millions who marched this weekend voted at the last election. Should they have stayed at home, silent and in shame for not voting for Blair, Bush or the pro-war Conservatives?
Suppose Saddam had stood for election against his son. Would the Iraqis who refused to vote for either have no right to complain about the way Iraq is governed?
Dave
Originally posted by richhoey
Overall I very much agree, but you are being a little generous when you say Britain is a republic. It isn't - it's a constitutional monarchy without a written constitution, which I assure you is considerably worse.
This is where my ignorance of the details of the British political system reveals itself; I just don't
know how the Monarchy part of the system fits in. Many of us over on the other side simply
(mis)understand that the royal part of the politics are just for show. I would love to hear a
summary of the government works and, perhaps, how Parliment functions differently than
Congress over here.
Originally posted by richhoey
I also think that while it's very important to vote, we shouldn't discount the views of those that don't.
When the doctor tells the patient, you need to give up fatty foods, and the patient doesn't listen
does he really have a right to complain when he dies younger? The solution is inconvenient,
maybe even annoying, but it is ultimately fairly straightforward and easy to do. We know the
impact that fatty foods has on our heart and when a doctor tells you in no uncertain terms that
they will cause your early death, you make a choice right there on the spot.
We know the impact voting or not voting can have on our countries. We make a choice to vote or
not to vote in almost every election (sickness and the like excepted).
Voting is a privilege. It is what (litte) voice we have in what goes on with our money in our
countries. When a person chooses not to vote, that is indeed their right, but they are saying
by that inaction that they do not care enough about the government to spend the 15-30 minutes
standing in line once a year (or less often). When they can't afford our forefathers (who fought
and died for this right) that kind of time (~24-30 hours over a lifetime), then I say that
they are hypocrits when they spend ridiculous amounts of time protesting.
Voting percentages in England are about as apalling as they are over here. But everyone has an
opinion, often a strong one. One talks out of both sides of their mouth when they criticize
government but do not vote. Voting took me 5 minutes this past November. In past six elections
I have spent less than 3 hours waiting. It took me longer to get my eye exam for my Driver
License, the one time I did it. Apathy and laziness accounts for most of what does and does not
happen in governmental life. If we took 3 hours a year to review candidates seriously (not sound-
bytes from the media) and thirty minutes to vote, the world would be a much better, safer,
healthier place.
Nemesio
Originally posted by David TebbAn election would necessitate a number of candidates. If there were only one candidate, voting
Suppose Saddam had stood for election against his son. Would the Iraqis who refused to vote for either have no right to complain about the way Iraq is governed?
would be a formality.
I am assuming that the election process involves the weeding out of many candidates until a
clear winner is established. The pro-forma elections that occur in many countries are a different
story, of course. And so, too, would they be similarly perfunctory in Iraq if Saddam did what you
suggest.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Nemesio, do you really believe the only reason people don't vote is out of apathy or laziness? Has it never occurred to you that they might be angry or disgusted with the political process.
So you think the millions of people who took to the streets in anti-war demonstrations are 'hipocrites' who spend 'ridiculous amounts of time protesting' If only they were more passive, put a cross in a box and shut up like good citizens!
If you believe the world will be a 'much better, safer, healthier place' if only more people voted, regardless of what thay vote for, then I think you are sadly deluded.
Dave
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by nemesioI made up a scenario with two candidates. I did that to illustrate the futility of voting when there is no real choice between candidates, as many people feel is happening in Britain and the USA at the moment.
An election would necessitate a number of candidates. If there were only one candidate, voting
would be a formality.
I am assuming that the election process involves the weeding out of many candidates until a
clear winner is established. The pro-forma elections that occur in many countries are a different
story, of course. And so, too, would they be similarly perfunctory in Iraq if Saddam did what you
suggest.
If it would make you happier, imagine a scenario in which all of Saddams relatives stood for election. There would be plenty of candidates to choose from, but nothing worth voting for 😉
Dave