T
Teabag
Guest
ClubMan said:
That is incorrect and please quote my whole post instead of taking me out of context. I did care to vote once - and I will vote in another referendum that I feel strongly about. And I will vote for a TD if I feel strongly about him/her. But for the last 15 years, I couldn't care less who is TD for my constituency.
Dont fall off that high horse now !
Happy Christmas !
ClubMan said:
Didn't I already deal with this suggestion in a previous post Clubman??
If you don't like anyone you're voting for then get involved yourself. It's a poor suggestion if you ask me. If I wanted to be in politics then I'd probably already be involved.
If I don't like the service I get in my local shop I don't become a shopkeeper do I?
Again, the onus is put on the voter instead of looking at the political situation itself. Perhaps we need to vet our TD's better. I'm sure there's all sorts of ways this could be done. I know some people have suggested these ideas in the past - training to be a politician etc...
You're the one who said that you don't care about politics in the context of a discussion about voting. Not sure what high horse you're talking about but given the choice between a high horse and being the lowest common denominator I know what I'd choose...Teabag said:
So why were you asking again about practical/useful suggestions?Gabriel said:
Seems reasonable to me. That's why I suggested it.
Why not? Especially if you are one of those many people who accuse many retailers of ripping off people and profiteering?
Isn't voting for them or not as the case may be the ultimate form of vetting available to the electorate?
T
Teabag
Guest
ClubMan said:
The turnout in the 2002 general election confirmed a downward trend in voter participation and represented the lowest turnout since the foundation of the State. Are all these non-voters lowest common denominators too ?
Not necessarily - just those who moan about the system (often while contradictorily claiming not to care about politics at all) and claim that there is no reason to vote but don't have courage of their convictions to do something to address the perceived problems.
On a more general note [broken link removed] makes for some pertinent and interesting reading.
On a more general note [broken link removed] makes for some pertinent and interesting reading.
T
Teabag
Guest
ClubMan said:
Did you even read my posts ?!?!
Where did I moan about the system ? I dont moan that I dont vote - I just dont vote - I dont try to get other people not to vote - I was simply saying that it is ok for me not to vote if thats what I want to do. It hasn't bothered me who was my local TD for the last 15 years. Get it ?
What do you mean courage of my convictions ? You know nothing of my convictions you arrogant man. Yes, I did sent a nappy to Michael Martin. You say that is rediculous. I disagree. I felt it could help rectify a perceived problem in this country. I am happy I did. Which TD in my constituency should I have voted for in order for this to happen ?
Now, pick out a line from above (or from a previous post) and attack me down another tangent with another stab in the dark.
Good night.
Er, keep your hair on. I wasn't necessarily referring to you above. If you read my post you will see that I was talking much more generally.Teabag said:
Please note the . If you can't discuss the issue without resorting to personal abuse then maybe you should desist altogether?
Z
z107
Guest
What we get is what the system dictates. We get politicians who are good at being voted into power. No more, no less. According to the current system, anyone can run the country, regardless of skill or qualification. (That's precisely what we've got!)
If you were unfortunate enough to have to under go surgery, who would you like to perform the operation?
a. A team who has just won a popularity contest - maybe in the style of 'Big Brother' tv show.
b. A team who have undergone rigorous training and have extensive experience in the procedure.
RainyDay said:
Agreed
I always use my vote (well, assuming Im able to get to the polls), at least this way, I get my pick of a bad lot or perhaps, contribute towards the removal of someone I really don't like thats currently in power !
Cheers
G>
[broken link removed]
Z
z107
Guest
It seems to be taboo to even suggest that our current form of democracy is a bad system. Why not blame the system?
You can't change the users (voters) so the only other option is to change the system. Any half decent systems analyst should be able to tell you this.
While you can't change the voters, you can certainly change the way they vote - if you really want to do so. Voter education, political participation, civics classes in school would be just a few top-of-the-head suggestions - I'm sure there are many other options out there.
The half-decent analyst would certainly tell you that you don't rush to replace the current system until you can propose a better alternative. So let's see your alternative - there is no taboo here - If you have another serious alternative, let's see it.
The half-decent analyst would certainly tell you that you don't rush to replace the current system until you can propose a better alternative. So let's see your alternative - there is no taboo here - If you have another serious alternative, let's see it.
Z
z107
Guest
I don't have all the answers, just some half-baked ideas. I'd be happy to present these if anyone is interested. You have already suggested a way the current system could be improved, (although 'voter education' could be regarded as a bit of a euphemism!
)I suppose the first step would be some sort of agreement that the current system is flawed - to the extent that it doesn't work for the people.
You're right insofar as defining the problem to be solved is definitely the first step. But I'm struggling with this. I'm not claiming the current system is perfect, but I don't accept your broad claim that 'it doesn't work for the people'. Would you care to expand on this?
RainyDay said:
Perhaps there are two intertwining issues here (and before some Concrete Thinker jumps down my throat requiring to know "where/who above said this what follows is a distilled gist of the debate, to my mind).
The first could be rephrased as:- "Irish parliamentary politics is moribund and politicians are a self-selecting 'club' which attracts and tolerates similar individuals with limited abilities and no leadership vision."
The second could be rephrased thus:- "The Irish electorate (those who vote, those who don't, those who spoil et al) serve only their own or local economic interests in use of their vote and lack understanding of bigger issues".
Might not both of these corruptions of the democratic process be remedied by a public press which was objective and comprehensive in putting before the public the possibilities and restraints of political action in context. Though it's called "the media" investigative journalism increasingly fails to provide a forum for these important debates.
Z
z107
Guest
Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion
Moderator note: This post and several of those that follow have been split from this thread where they were off topic.
-- ClubMan
These laws are created by humans, so it follows that 'guilt' or 'innocence' are also a human invention. Laws also change, what might have been legal last year, might now be illegal.
With this in mind, I can't see how there is any direct correlation between what's right or wrong (if these concepts even exist) and the laws of the land. So contrived 'guilt' may be discrete, but it probably doesn't mean much in the whole scheme of things.
I also believe that tax is extortion. This is because as an individual I do not have too much choice on how I am to governed, or even if I want to be governed.
Moderator note: This post and several of those that follow have been split from this thread where they were off topic.
-- ClubMan
These laws are created by humans, so it follows that 'guilt' or 'innocence' are also a human invention. Laws also change, what might have been legal last year, might now be illegal.
With this in mind, I can't see how there is any direct correlation between what's right or wrong (if these concepts even exist) and the laws of the land. So contrived 'guilt' may be discrete, but it probably doesn't mean much in the whole scheme of things.
I also believe that tax is extortion. This is because as an individual I do not have too much choice on how I am to governed, or even if I want to be governed.
Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion
I don't really see the relevance or point in engaging in this level of semantics on the issue to be honest. This seems to be getting into more philosophical than practical territory.umop3p!sdn said:
What is "too much choice" in this context? Do you consider the abity to elect public representatives or even stand for election yourself enough choice? Or too little choice? On the face of it it sounds to me like you don't think that democracy is the best (albeit not necessarily ideal) system of governance which would put you in a tiny minority. Thankfully.