Z
z107
Guest
Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion
We cannot really suggest then that tax evasion is universally right or wrong.
The current election process is a farce, engineered to keep certain individuals in power. I expressed my views in a previous thread about this.
Correct, I certainly do not think our current incarnation of democracy is the best. Far from it in fact. How do you know I'm in a tiny minority? - what evidence do you have to support this?
This is going off topic.
We cannot really suggest then that tax evasion is universally right or wrong.
The current election process is a farce, engineered to keep certain individuals in power. I expressed my views in a previous thread about this.
Correct, I certainly do not think our current incarnation of democracy is the best. Far from it in fact. How do you know I'm in a tiny minority? - what evidence do you have to support this?
This is going off topic.
Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion
I never said that it was universally wrong. I was assuming that readers would be reasonable enough to infer that I was couching my comments in the context of and with reference to the existing tax and legislative system that pertains and not in some vacuum in which all rules are mutable.umop3p!sdn said:
I would strongly disagree with that opinion. I probably said it in that thread but why not stand for election yourself if you think you can do better?
Most of the 63% of the electorate who [broken link removed] presumably consider the system worth participating which would suggest that you would be in a minority in considering the system a farce.
Z
z107
Guest
Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion
To summarise my point, our society could be 'wrong' in the first place.
Assumptions!
I don't have the marketing budget.
Really? Did you personally conduct the survey? Is there really a relationship between considering the system a farce and voting? - maybe people have no other choice. There may certainly be other factors to consider.
I spoiled my vote in 2002, would I be included in the 63%?
To summarise my point, our society could be 'wrong' in the first place.
Assumptions!
I don't have the marketing budget.
Really? Did you personally conduct the survey? Is there really a relationship between considering the system a farce and voting? - maybe people have no other choice. There may certainly be other factors to consider.
I spoiled my vote in 2002, would I be included in the 63%?
Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion
So you don't like the way in which we elect/appoint our leaders and because of this you don't think anyone has a duty of obligation to fund public works or services? I don't see cause and effect there. To me you are muddying the waters with a spurious argument. (No offence intended)
So you don't like the way in which we elect/appoint our leaders and because of this you don't think anyone has a duty of obligation to fund public works or services? I don't see cause and effect there. To me you are muddying the waters with a spurious argument. (No offence intended)
Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion
If you were serious about running then you'd surely find some way of raising election funding from like minded people?umop3p!sdn said:
OK - if you don't accept that most people are at least reasonably happy with the existing democratic system then perhaps you could show me some evidence that they are not?
Of course.
Z
z107
Guest
Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion
That's not quite what I said. here is what I actually stated:
(Which part of your post was supposed to be offensive?)
That's not quite what I said. here is what I actually stated:
Note that I didn't use the word 'anyone'.
(Which part of your post was supposed to be offensive?)
I'm not serious about running for election. I simply don't agree that the current system works well. Consider as well that there is a fundamental flaw in that like minded people would want to fund the election of someone else!
Apologies. This should read "Really? Did you personally conduct a survey?"
I don't recall where I stated anything like this. I do not know how many people are not happy with the democratic system. You are the one that stated I'm in a 'tiny minority' with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
So it seems that this 63% includes people who presumably do not consider the system worth participating ?
Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion
Is there - what is it?umop3p!sdn said:
Exhibit A: 63% participation in the last general election.
Surely turning up to spoil one's vote is participation? At the very least it shows that the individual wants to make sure that nobody else can use his/her vote. I've done it myself when I did not see anybody worth voting for (mainly presidential elections).
Z
z107
Guest
Re: The attitude of some AAM contributors to tax evasion
Unless you can find an unbiased survey that shows that a minority of people are disaffected, your claim that I'm in a minority is unfounded. This 63% figure is irrelevant because it only represents those who voted. (It is a pretty dire turnout as well!)
To answer your other question, if someone believes that the current system is flawed, why would they want to fund someone's election?
Participation does not mean that people are happy with the system. I participated in 2002 even though I believed the system to be a farce.
Unless you can find an unbiased survey that shows that a minority of people are disaffected, your claim that I'm in a minority is unfounded. This 63% figure is irrelevant because it only represents those who voted. (It is a pretty dire turnout as well!)
To answer your other question, if someone believes that the current system is flawed, why would they want to fund someone's election?
umop3p!sdn said:
Your argument is suffering from a severe case of anti-climax. You start off with some interesting foreplay about how flawed the current system is. Then you offer the promise of a new changed system. But when invited to do the business and suggest a real alternative that will stand up, you totally run out of steam and fail to consummate the argument.
We all know democracy is not perfect. It is however better than every other system that's already been tried. Do you have a better alternative in mind or not?
Z
z107
Guest
The purpose of this thread, I would hope, is to see if people agree that voting is a farce. If a good number of people do agree that this is the case, maybe we could open up another thread to discuss alternatives. I would be very interested in hearing other people's opinions. I'm the first to admit that many of my own ideas are flawed.
Maybe as a group we could come up with a workable system.
In the meantime, will anyone take the leap and agree that voting is a farce?
Why not open the thread now about possible alternatives to or improvements on democracy since you at least seem to think that voting is a farce? Surely you don't need safety in numbers to have the courage of your convictions on this matter? I'd be interested in hearing your own suggestions no matter how flawed they are.
DrMoriarty
Moderator
- Messages
- 5,173
To posit that 'voting is a farce' would suggest to me that the, ehm, proposers of the motion would at least be prepared to indicate some viable alternative...?
It seems that upsidedown prefers engaging in floccinaucinihilipilification on this matter to making constructive suggestions as to the possible alternatives.
I feel that voting is very important and is far from being a farce. I do however feel that something needs to be done to engage those who are apathetic toward voting and those who feel that it makes no difference.
It's no wonder that people have switched off voting, the Seanad is at best toothless and at worst pointless, the Dáil is nearly always empty or on holiday, the Nice 1 result was ignored and viewed by the politicians as an embarrassment - they told the Europeans 'Don't worry, we'll put it back to the people and ensure we get the right answer'. All parties colluded to ensure that we wouldn't have an election for President, if that happened in an African or middle eastern country there would have been an outcry. The politicians step up to take credit for anything that goes right but blame EU regulations when things go wrong.
Electronic voting was a nonsense and would have made it impossible to privately cast a protest vote, what a waste of money, it would have been better spent on a campaign showing the importance and relevance of going out to vote, and to think we're still wasting money paying for the machines to be stored. Maybe after the next election they'll get rid of the machines under the WEEE but I wouldn't be surprised if they end up in an illegal dump in Wicklow.
It's no wonder that people have switched off voting, the Seanad is at best toothless and at worst pointless, the Dáil is nearly always empty or on holiday, the Nice 1 result was ignored and viewed by the politicians as an embarrassment - they told the Europeans 'Don't worry, we'll put it back to the people and ensure we get the right answer'. All parties colluded to ensure that we wouldn't have an election for President, if that happened in an African or middle eastern country there would have been an outcry. The politicians step up to take credit for anything that goes right but blame EU regulations when things go wrong.
Electronic voting was a nonsense and would have made it impossible to privately cast a protest vote, what a waste of money, it would have been better spent on a campaign showing the importance and relevance of going out to vote, and to think we're still wasting money paying for the machines to be stored. Maybe after the next election they'll get rid of the machines under the WEEE but I wouldn't be surprised if they end up in an illegal dump in Wicklow.
The Seanad is an anti-democratic institution. Only sectoral, special interest groups have a vote. Not the general public. This is definitely one area in which our democratic system could be improved - e.g. universal franchise for the election of most (allowing for some Government appointees as happens now) or all senators.michaelm said:
Would you, in turn, settle for agreement that voting lies somewhere on a continuum between "not quite useless but seriously flawed verging on farce" and "not quite perfect and better than most but could be improved"umop3p!sdn said:
This would then allow a new debate on how to improve, change or reform the system? I don't see why its necessary to condemn the current system as farcical in order to engage on a debate as to what should be done with it (or calling in the systems analysts)
My problem with the current system is that our democratically elected government allows itself to be dictated to by special interest groups who set out how the country is to be run over the following few years. Government is no longer by the people. The people now have but one of many voices who call the shots.
I agree completely with ClubMan about the Seanad but I think that the usurping of our sovereign government by un-elected interest groups is a far more serious issue.
I am of course talking about social partnership (the last few pages of Animal Farm keep springing to mind when I think of all the partners in the once smoke filled rooms…).
I agree completely with ClubMan about the Seanad but I think that the usurping of our sovereign government by un-elected interest groups is a far more serious issue.
I am of course talking about social partnership (the last few pages of Animal Farm keep springing to mind when I think of all the partners in the once smoke filled rooms…).