ClubMan said:You don't care enough to vote yet you care enough to engage in ridiculous populist publicity stunts? Maybe you should run for office too.
ClubMan said:Obviously you did.
That's precisely the question that my suggestions above address. However, on the evidence of this thread, I'm not sure if people who want to just moan about the system running for election would reduce the alleged g******e quotient in the Oireachtas to be honest.
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: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 !
So why were you asking again about practical/useful suggestions?Gabriel said:Didn't I already deal with this suggestion in a previous post Clubman??
Seems reasonable to me. That's why I suggested it.If you don't like anyone you're voting for then get involved yourself. It's a poor suggestion if you ask me.
Why not? Especially if you are one of those many people who accuse many retailers of ripping off people and profiteering?If I don't like the service I get in my local shop I don't become a shopkeeper do I?
Isn't voting for them or not as the case may be the ultimate form of vetting available to the electorate?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.
ClubMan said: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...
ClubMan said: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.
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: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 ?
Please note the . If you can't discuss the issue without resorting to personal abuse then maybe you should desist altogether?You know nothing of my convictions you arrogant man.
So what you're saying is that the public is stupid?
We get the government we deserve, no more, no less.
Don't blame the system. Blame the voters who are short-sighted enough to vote in that manner.umop3p!sdn said: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!)
RainyDay said:Don't blame the system. Blame the voters who are short-sighted enough to vote in that manner.
Don't blame the system. Blame the voters who are short-sighted enough to vote in that manner.
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.
RainyDay said: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.
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: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.
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.as an individual I do not have too much choice on how I am to governed, or even if I want to be governed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?