tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30898556.post3817690681024236351..comments2023-04-20T11:58:31.493-04:00Comments on LOUD!: Handyman's Guide to ParliamentLoudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14298648959818424684noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30898556.post-44359409127056781932008-11-23T19:31:00.000-05:002008-11-23T19:31:00.000-05:00"We shouldn't be encouraging people to vote at all..."We shouldn't be encouraging people to vote at all since most people have no real idea about what issues they are voting about"<BR/><BR/>Couldn't we say the same thing about the politicians themselves? *zing!*<BR/><BR/>Also: we shouldn't encourage ordinary people to vote since they don't know enough about the issues, but we should give them the power to run the country?<BR/><BR/><BR/>"truly great leaders do not desire power for its own sake"<BR/><BR/>On a only marginally related note. I think there is an over-emphasis on greatness. I think that, at least in a working system, it is more important for the leader to safeguard the rights and prospects of Canada's citizens then institute drastic changes which we consider necessary for greatness.<BR/><BR/>Congratulations on the presumably unknown commenter Ph... loud (have to protect your identity now). Your journey to internet supremacy is off to a good start.<BR/> <BR/>- Simon (who is perfectly comfortable giving his real name)Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13040017851508621689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30898556.post-14016715789536494502008-11-20T14:37:00.000-05:002008-11-20T14:37:00.000-05:00I've certainly considered such a pseudo-direct-dem...I've certainly considered such a pseudo-direct-democratic approach, Anonymous, but what gets me every time is that in order to be fair, it would have to be somewhat self-defeating. Here's what I mean: suppose you leave the selection of your representatives up to random chance. Maybe you get a sort of socialist majority one term, and hardline conservatives the next? You want your legislature to reflect not necessarily the political opinions of the imperfectly informed masses, but the spirit of their moral opinions. You can hardly sort people by self-described political affiliation, and then fill the legislature by relative percentage of people who adhere to whichever political philosophy, because 1) two people may have different definitions of "liberal" (small-l intentional) or "conservative" or "green" or "libertarian" and so on, so in a great sense organizing people by what they call themselves has only vague meaning, and 2) because then the outcome of government is pretty much set, as I'm not sure we don't have much of a swing vote here in Canada. <BR/><BR/>Implementing true direct democracy (via, say, the internet) brings back the problem of voter informedness. Also, direct democratic principles allow people to do things like lower and freeze rates of taxation (which sounds great, right?), as has happened in California. That in itself isn't bad, but it takes just a little populism and bam, Canada's hospitals become critically underfunded.<BR/><BR/>One of the most critical problems with how most contemporary political systems work is that no one is playing the long game, so to speak. Elected officials have to worry about getting their seats back in 3-5 years, and direct democracy or the jury-duty democracy you propose are staffed by people who will by and large be focused on day-to-day challenges. Someone has to be there to look at the consequences of our actions not within 5 years, but maybe as far out as 500 (ok, hyperbole). Seven generations, and all that. This isn't just about the environment and climate change, but economics, societal forces, and even space exploration and colonization. Enterprises which don't provide immediate benefits need someone to champion them.<BR/><BR/>As for whether or not great leaders desire power, I think it's a double-edged sword. I think you'd be right to say "truly great leaders do not desire power <I> for its own sake </I>". I think a leader needs to have a compelling vision for the future, that is to say he or she should desire power, but know above all why he or she wants it, and how he or she would use it. <BR/><BR/>speaking of "he or she", the one great benefit to your jury-duty democracy is that gender balance while not necessarily mandated would on the balance come out even, all things being properly random.Loudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14298648959818424684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30898556.post-28640019568800755272008-11-19T01:12:00.000-05:002008-11-19T01:12:00.000-05:00I almost go the other way. We shouldn't be encoura...I almost go the other way. We shouldn't be encouraging people to vote at all since most people have no real idea about what issues they are voting about. Everyone is just too involved in their own little corner of the world to see, or even to have time to look at the bigger picture...<BR/><BR/>I think that democracy was a good stop-gap, but now it's time to do it right: Make politics like the draft or jury duty. Your number comes up and you head off the Ottawa for your 4 years. Do the best you can and do things the way you think they should be done. I suppose you'd have to come up with a way to keep the entrenched bureaucracy from colouring your rather green MP's too much though. <BR/><BR/>In my opinion the biggest problem with modern politics is that it tends to attract the power hungry which are not the people you really want running the show. "Truly great leaders do not seek power, they have power thrust upon them."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30898556.post-34875504892026150022008-11-18T04:43:00.000-05:002008-11-18T04:43:00.000-05:00I'm too busy being a doctor to understand politics...I'm too busy being a doctor to understand politics. Though I wish I did.Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01821620988627645371noreply@blogger.com