I feel like this question is as useful as asking “when is it ok to downvote someone?” You can theorize about how a downvote should only be used when someone is not contributing to the discussion honestly, and how you should never downvote someone just because you disagree with them…but at the end of the day, people are gonna downvote others for whatever random reason they feel like.
Similarly, is it useful to ask what a vote “means” in a democracy? Or is it a waste of time to try and apply reason to, or derive reason from, the behavior of a hivemind? Unlike individuals who can learn from hypothetical failures, I personally believe hiveminds (groups/societies/whatever word you’d like to use) can only learn from actual failures.
The people could elect a perfect model citizen who will represent the people’s best interests, but if what’s best for the people in the long term comes with too much discomfort in the near term, the people will happily vote against their own interests.
My personal preference is to vote for a candidate 1) who has a chance of winning and 2) seems to embody the intelligence and moral character necessary to make difficult, potentially unpopular, decisions. Ideally they’re somehow smart and able enough to make unpopular decisions a little bit less unpopular. So, I guess this means smart, ethical, and charismatic. I feel like this is one of those cases where I get to pick two one of those traits, and it has to be charismatic.
So, I guess this means smart, ethical, and charismatic. I feel like this is one of those cases where I get to pick two one of those traits, and it has to be charismatic.
That seems to accurately describe where we find ourselves. To quote Men in Black, “A person is smart, people are dumb.”
I think we don’t get out of this situation by thinking real hard and convincing people to vote based on a theoretical future; people will only change their behaviour in the face of an actual failure. I’m not a historian, but I have to assume the appeal of fascism was alive and well in the US during the great depression. We just had the opportunity to learn from Germany and Italy’s mistakes before we went down the same road. Now WE are the example that will hopefully sway other countries’ democratic behaviors.
Ex. the conservative party was heavily favored to win the Canadian election after Trudeau stepped down, but ever since Trump took office, the polls have completely reversed. Still unclear where it will land, but I think Canada’s voters are getting that much needed opportunity to learn from our failures.
I feel like this question is as useful as asking “when is it ok to downvote someone?” You can theorize about how a downvote should only be used when someone is not contributing to the discussion honestly, and how you should never downvote someone just because you disagree with them…but at the end of the day, people are gonna downvote others for whatever random reason they feel like.
Similarly, is it useful to ask what a vote “means” in a democracy? Or is it a waste of time to try and apply reason to, or derive reason from, the behavior of a hivemind? Unlike individuals who can learn from hypothetical failures, I personally believe hiveminds (groups/societies/whatever word you’d like to use) can only learn from actual failures.
The people could elect a perfect model citizen who will represent the people’s best interests, but if what’s best for the people in the long term comes with too much discomfort in the near term, the people will happily vote against their own interests.
My personal preference is to vote for a candidate 1) who has a chance of winning and 2) seems to embody the intelligence and moral character necessary to make difficult, potentially unpopular, decisions. Ideally they’re somehow smart and able enough to make unpopular decisions a little bit less unpopular. So, I guess this means smart, ethical, and charismatic. I feel like this is one of those cases where I get to pick
twoone of those traits, and it has to be charismatic.That seems to accurately describe where we find ourselves. To quote Men in Black, “A person is smart, people are dumb.”
I think we don’t get out of this situation by thinking real hard and convincing people to vote based on a theoretical future; people will only change their behaviour in the face of an actual failure. I’m not a historian, but I have to assume the appeal of fascism was alive and well in the US during the great depression. We just had the opportunity to learn from Germany and Italy’s mistakes before we went down the same road. Now WE are the example that will hopefully sway other countries’ democratic behaviors.
Ex. the conservative party was heavily favored to win the Canadian election after Trudeau stepped down, but ever since Trump took office, the polls have completely reversed. Still unclear where it will land, but I think Canada’s voters are getting that much needed opportunity to learn from our failures.
To the United States! The cause of, and solution to, all the world’s problems.