Quote:
Originally Posted by mapuc
Friends. A voter have his or her reason for the choice they make at the voting station.
Reason's like:
The politician is handsome/attractive
or
We in our family have always voted on...
(I have met/seen many with those attitude)
And of course then it's those who have a more strict relationship to the politicians or party they put their vote on.
Markus
|
All that imo are splendid illustration why such voters should not be allowed to vote. The best service they can contribute to the communal wellbeing is not to vote if their motives for their choice are not more and are not better than just this ^. The problem is the voting system can only function if two preconditions are fulfilled: people are altruistic and put their own wellbeing below the communal wellbeing, and 2.) they are competent in the matter they are voting on. The first thing is mostly never the case, and the second is mostly never the case. Most people are dilletanttes on economic, financial, social-political and so forth issues. But they demand a say on organising a state's leadership for a hundred million peopole...??? Are they kdding me??
In return, polticians claim they can oversee all this and can responsibly and competently navigate and administrate these task for the same state with 100 million people...?? Are they kidding me as well...??? The human brain cannot even for a figurative illustration of numbers beyond around the mid-20s range, beyond that it already must use immense cognitive tricks.
Its like giving hooligans whose only argument for why they favour their football club over the other one is that it is the club in their neighbourhgood and it is tradition, the key to the treasury of the nation and the seat in the president's office.
You do not let the passengers in a plane fly the plane. You have pilots for that task. And there is the real problem. Thje bigger the plane, the more difficult and complex the cockpit tasks. Its a difference to veen just taxi in an Airbvus A380, and in a Cessna 172.
Thats why I am against deep state and big states with central governments, and argue for small self-amdinsitrating entitie sinstead that are diemnsioned such that thos eliving within them cna mostyl oversee what is going on in them, and so can form educated opinions on what is going on, and can see what consequences oth people'S deeds and decisions and their own deeds anmd decisions have. This is not possible in states with millions and millions, and such states are so complex that transparency is only an utopic idela to strive for, but that is completely out of reach. And so the scum takes over and abuses the invitation to the max.
The bigger in size and the more complex in structure an administrational organisation is, the easier it is to hide incompetence and corruption and responsibility in its inner labyrinth. And I can absolutely not imagine any way how to avoid this dilemma except going much, much, much, much smaller.