This is my own response to my previous opinion piece, A Simple Choice.
Of course, there is not another choice in this election, other than getting out and voting. It seems that voter apathy is the real determinate of who wins. There are several factors driving voter apathy:
If both parties had platforms to lead governments at all levels to become more efficient, more responsive, and less expensive, then both parties might find that they can find some common ground for programs that grow the economy, cost less, be responsive to business and the public, and provide robust social services. And with growth in a cooperative spirit, everyone will have time and energy to tackle the really big issues such as climate change. Seems that growth in a cooperative spirit is needed in all countries. How can this happen? Perhaps while we ask our politicians to start talking with and listening to each other, everyone else should also work at finding a way to talk with and listen to each other. I don't have any real answers but I believe this is key. I heard about an experiment where a dozen Democrats and an equal number of Republicans agreed to the following experiment. The researchers questioned each individual privately about their beliefs, especially what they thought about Republicans and Democrats. Then, they all got together and sat in two concentric circles. They flipped a coin as which group would go into the inner circle first. The other group sat in a larger circle around them and were instructed to listen only. Then the inner circle group were asked to describe the life experiences that lead them to have the beliefs they have. They were asked to focus on their life experiences, not their beliefs. After everyone had their turn, they switched inner and outer circles. Finally, they sat in one big circle with alternating Democrat Republican Democrat Republican etc. and were asked to talk with one another. The researchers found that virtually everyone moderated their view of the others and that they were able to talk about various political issues and find at least some common areas of agreement. Perhaps a movement of small groups around the country listening to and sharing life experiences in this format would help us relearn the skill of talking with each other in a civil manner.
0 Comments
Americans actually have a simple choice. Sadly, this simple choice gets lost with the focus on personalities - much of which is not civil rhetoric.
Choice #1 - Republicans They stand for a capitalist free market with much less regulation. History shows us that this approach does create winners (the American dream), but it also creates many more losers. Republicans believe that lower taxes for corporations and the wealthy will help create a strong economy which will benefit all. Wealth inequality is the highest in modern history. They also want less government support for the losers. They believe that if they create a strong economy, people can fend for themselves. This includes people buying their own medical insurance. History also shows that less regulation results in more environmental damage. In one term during the Trump administration, the Republicans rolled back more than 100 environmental rules. Climate change is rapidly becoming an existential threat to humanity. Choice #2 - Democrats They stand for a capitalist free market with some regulation. They believe in reasonable support for those struggling the most. Wealth inequality should be less than it is now. This means that there could be higher taxes for wealthy individuals and corporations, and lower taxes for the average American. There should be fewer losers. Then everyone can contribute to the economy, and the economy will be even stronger. The Democrats are working to protect the environment and lessen the existential threat of climate change - for Americans and all of humanity. The choice: Republicans - winners take all philosophy Democrats - we can all win philosophy See my next blog for further discussion on this subject. https://thoughtsbyjuliansale.weebly.com/blog/american-election-8-nov-22-another-choice The old adage "The Voter Is Always Right" is no longer true, or Why Democracy is in Trouble ...7/20/2019 In the past, it was said that "the voter is always right". Indeed, until fairly recently, even when elections produced surprising results, a logical explanation could always be found. Indeed, there did appear to be a deeper wisdom in the collective vote.
That is no longer the case and as a result, democracies all around the world are in trouble. Why is that? We think of democracy as dating back to the ancient Greeks but modern democracy where everyone has a vote is barely 100 years old. Over that 100 years, the number and type of "Influencers" who determine how people decide to vote has changed dramatically. "Influencers" are people, organizations, or information sources that impact your voting decisions. In 1900, the large majority of the population lived in rural communities and their literacy rates were significantly lower than today so their "influencers" were local and limited. This did not change much until after WWII when there was a prolonged economic boom. Increasing access to education (primary and secondary), newspapers, radio, TV, plus work and social groups in urban communities broadened the "influencers". With all this increased access to information and opinions, one might expect that voter decision making would become less of an emotional response it had typically been in the past, to a somewhat more reasoned response. Until the end of the 20th century, there did indeed appear to be a deeper wisdom in the collective vote, however, evidence suggests that voting was still largely an emotional affair. By the beginning of the 21st century, things started to change dramatically. In the year 2000, less than 50% of households in many advanced democracies had access to computers and the Internet. Facebook was not founded until 2004, the year that Google went public. Today with widespread access to computers, smartphones, the Internet and social media, things have changed dramatically. The number of "Influencers" on your voting decision making has gone up exponentially, "Influencers" are no longer local and limited, they are now global and extensive. Interestingly, at a time when we need voters to use more reason and intellect, there is little evidence they are doing so. In fact, voter decisions are even more "emotionally based" than ever before. And as we have also seen, an Influencer can now be someone from another country, even a non-democratic country. There are many reasons democracy is faltering, "emotionally based" voting being just one, albeit a very important reason. Another issue is that many voters, perhaps the majority of voters, do not really understand how democracy works. Democratic governments have a Legislative Branch which makes the laws, an Executive Branch which implements the laws, and an independent Judiciary Branch which is tasked with judging people based on the laws written by the Legislative branch, and the Constitution. Behind all this is a bureaucratic machinery which does the work. Individual elected representatives as part of the Legislative Branch sit on various working committees and communicate with their constituents. This is a much simplified description but provides the essence of a modern democracy. Running a country with a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars, even trillions of dollars, is a very complex endeavor. To make changes to current laws or introduce new laws takes an enormous amount of work, including, in many cases, mandatory consultations with the public and outside experts. Also new or changed laws have to comply with a whole host of existing regulatory requirements (environmental, etc) and of course the constitution. Then things can get challenged in the courts, as we saw recently with the Trans Mountain Pipeline where the Supreme Court ruled that the consultation process with Native Canadians was not sufficiently rigorous. The net result is that things do not get done quickly. Many voters are expressing frustration at how long it takes to get things done, in part because they do not understand how democracy works. Also, the bipartisan nature of politics today does not help in getting things done in a timely manner. Democracy has worked in the past because parties have found effective ways of achieving sort of consensus. Perhaps one can understand the appeal of a strong charismatic "populist" leader who promises to cut through all the crap and get things done. For many, the more radical, the better. Of course, a dictator has much greater ability to cut through the crap and get things done. But that is not a democracy where individual freedoms are protected and individuals have some say in what gets done and how it gets done. Here in Ontario, Canada, we currently see the result of a government determined to ram through it's agenda with little or no outside consultation, and it seems that the voter does not like being left out of the democratic process after all. For sure, governments need to find ways of becoming much more efficient in running a democracy. But the voter also has a huge responsibility to become better educated on how government works and, perhaps even more importantly, to learn how to make rational sense of all the Influencers they are exposed to. A starting point would be a required educational course for prospective politicians ie: you cannot run for office without taking this course. Also required would be "civics" courses for the public, not just students in the educational systems but everyone. Educate both the voter and the politician. If we find that such education still does not work, then even more dramatic solutions will have to be considered. One possibility is that before every election, all voters have to take an exam on their understanding of the political system and current issues. This would include an assessment of where they get their information and the reliability of that information. Then the score they get on this exam would determine the weight of their vote in an election. If you score 20% on the exam, then your vote only accounts for 20%. How one would implement such a system in a fair and secure way is not at all clear, but something has to be considered if we want democracy to survive. What ideas do you have? |
If you already have a feed reader set up, choose that reader and add this blog. Otherwise I suggest you select FeedBlitz to get email notifications of new blog posts.
AuthorRetired and loving life. Archives
February 2024
Categories
All
Link to my Climate Change blog: |