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.
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.
It's not, but in the context of the country and society we live in it is wrong.We cannot really suggest then that tax evasion is universally right or wrong.
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:We cannot really suggest then that tax evasion is universally right or wrong.
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?The current election process is a farce, engineered to keep certain individuals in power. I expressed my views in a previous thread about this.
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.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?
It's not, but in the context of the country and society we live in it is wrong.
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.
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.
If you were serious about running then you'd surely find some way of raising election funding from like minded people?umop3p!sdn said:I don't have the marketing budget.
Really? Did you personally conduct the survey?
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?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.
Of course.I spoiled my vote in 2002, would I be included in the 63%?
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)
Note that I didn't use the word 'anyone'.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.
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!If you were serious about running then you'd surely find some way of raising election funding from like minded people?
Apologies. This should read "Really? Did you personally conduct a survey?"Really? Did you personally conduct the 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.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?
So it seems that this 63% includes people who presumably do not consider the system worth participating ?Of course.I spoiled my vote in 2002, would I be included in the 63%?
Is there - what is it?umop3p!sdn said:Consider as well that there is a fundamental flaw in that like minded people would want to fund the election of someone else!
Exhibit A: 63% participation in the last general election.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.
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).So it seems that this 63% includes people who presumably do not consider the system worth participating ?
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.Exhibit A: 63% participation in the last general election.
umop3p!sdn said: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.
What's your suggestion for a better system than the one we have?
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.Then you offer the promise of a new changed system.
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:the Seanad is at best toothless and at worst pointless
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:The purpose of this thread, I would hope, is to see if people agree that voting is a farce. ..........In the meantime, will anyone take the leap and agree that voting is a farce?
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?