5 ms·

Certainly there are no perfect leaders, but if our government's structure is so perfect, then why does it matter which people are involved at all? The point is

by bloaf 14y ago

Certainly there are no perfect leaders, but if our government's structure is so perfect, then why does it matter which people are involved at all? The point is that who we elect matters, because if it didn't, there would be no point in electing anyone. The real point I believe is closer to George Bernard Shaw's words "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." Having a good system is irrelevant if no one bothers to implement it, or if the electorate seeks to undermine it.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago
Your logic is flawed in practical terms - does it matter who cleans the toilet? By your argument if any one of a given group is suitable then choosing no-one is most suitable. I think the logic is unsound in either locus.
- bloaf 14y ago
  I see, I wasn't completely clear. I meant that if our system makes it so that everyone is suitable for government, why bother having elections? We could just draw names from a hat. There is no point in voting for a candidate if that candidate would perform exactly as well as every other candidate. Elections in that scenario are literally asking people to make judgements that are impossible to make.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    Thanks for clarifying - the alternative is real democratic representation. That is the selected few would be representative in a more statistically significant way. It seems strange to choose a few privileged people as "representatives". I'm getting quite drawn by the idea of a lottery instead of an election; like being called up to jury duty.
    - bloaf 14y ago
      Indeed, true democratic representation would avoid that problem. I think that it would also make NDT's point even clearer. If the citizens were directly making the country's decisions then we certainly should be making serious efforts to ensure that every citizen is equipped to make the best decisions for the country.

by bloaf 14y ago

pbhjpbhj 14y ago

Your logic is flawed in practical terms - does it matter who cleans the toilet? By your argument if any one of a given group is suitable then choosing no-one is most suitable. I think the logic is unsound in either locus.

bloaf 14y ago
I see, I wasn't completely clear. I meant that if our system makes it so that everyone is suitable for government, why bother having elections? We could just draw names from a hat. There is no point in voting for a candidate if that candidate would perform exactly as well as every other candidate. Elections in that scenario are literally asking people to make judgements that are impossible to make.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  Thanks for clarifying - the alternative is real democratic representation. That is the selected few would be representative in a more statistically significant way. It seems strange to choose a few privileged people as "representatives". I'm getting quite drawn by the idea of a lottery instead of an election; like being called up to jury duty.
  - bloaf 14y ago
    Indeed, true democratic representation would avoid that problem. I think that it would also make NDT's point even clearer. If the citizens were directly making the country's decisions then we certainly should be making serious efforts to ensure that every citizen is equipped to make the best decisions for the country.