Jump to content
The Education Forum

Should the public elect political leaders by majority vote?


Ben Durrant
 Share

Recommended Posts

Many of the most powerfull people in the world today have gained their power solely through their election by the general public. This ability of the people to chose their own political leaders is rarely questioned, indeed, forms of government that do not advocate such principles are looked down upon as being backward and undemocratic. The ability of the people to chose their own political leaders is a cornerstone of democracy, the 'government of choice' of the modern world. But is allowing the general public to select the most powerful person in the world such a wise decision?

Take the position of the President of the United States - an office commonly acknowledged to be one of, if not the most powerful position in the world. Does the average person (American, in this case) have the ability to truly differentiate between the two final candidates, whom practically none of them have ever met? Their desicion is made over issues that the vast majority of the voters have little knowledge about, and only know what two very biased sources have told them? People chose the colours of their bedroom walls with more care than they do their president.

This fundamental part of democracy is critically flawed, and will bring democracy down with it when it shatters.

(The American system is flawed in many other ways, but this is just a more generic example)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of the most powerfull people in the world today have gained their power solely through their election by the general public. This ability of the people to chose their own political leaders is rarely questioned, indeed, forms of government that do not advocate such principles are looked down upon as being backward and undemocratic. The ability of the people to chose their own political leaders is a cornerstone of democracy, the 'government of choice' of the modern world. But is allowing the general public to select the most powerful person in the world such a wise decision?

Take the position of the President of the United States - an office commonly acknowledged to be one of, if not the most powerful position in the world. Does the average person (American, in this case) have the ability to truly differentiate between the two final candidates, whom practically none of them have ever met? Their desicion is made over issues that the vast majority of the voters have little knowledge about, and only know what two very biased sources have told them? People chose the colours of their bedroom walls with more care than they do their president.

This fundamental part of democracy is critically flawed, and will bring democracy down with it when it shatters.

(The American system is flawed in many other ways, but this is just a more generic example)

The whole voting process in this country is crap. Do we need to look at Florida a few years ago??? When a country as big and powerful such as the good ol' US of A cannot, at this year and time have a perfect voting process is nothing but a scam. We had a different president years ago, and we wouldnt be in this war, if it wasnt fixed the way it was in Florida. Say what you want, its your right. We arent suppose to talk about politics and religion as a rule, just to avoid the arguements. All of you who voted for Bushy years ago, are probably kicking yourselves in the ass now, when you finally saw the truth. When we can elect a President, and have it overruled by a commitee, because they feel as though it isnt right for the country [or whatever reason] and change the majority vote, is beyond me! Why do we bother?? When you can have the countrys future President determined by a "misscount, or by a hole not being fully punched out properly], is beyond the normal mans brain. Especially when the states Governer is the candidates brother, is beyond reality. They must think we are nothing more than mental midgets, who believe everything we are told! You can say what you want about the last election too. Would you have protested, and at least had a recount, instead of conceding defeat and crawling away??? I wouldnt. How about you? Think there was something amiss there too?? Even after the debacle in Florida, things got worse, as far as voting machines [and process] goes. Was it any better?? NO! Can you honestly say, that with all of the technology this country has today, they cant come up with a consistant, state to state, voting process, that is the same all across the country??? [with foolproof- no tamper devices] How about the Electoral States?? What is with that? Do they matter, if your majority votes can be changed by a commitees decision who decide who will be President despite who got the most votes, and had the most electoral states?? Regardless of what you may think, this country was based on having elections where ALL people had the right to vote, who they thought was the best choice for their country, and whoever got the majority of votes, won. That is what an election is. If you vote, you are suppose to do your own homework and find out everything you can about each candidate and their thoughts, changes that need to be made, and what they will do to make the country a better place to live in. Wheather you decide on religion, where they are from, what they look like, what they think, is all YOUR decision. Its your vote. But if your vote doesnt count because of an underhanded, political, unlawful, decision made by the "higher ups", is disgusting. Thanks Ben, I feel better, but im going to get a drink and my meds and calm down! LOL!

Just my opinion, FWIW. thanks-smitty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of the most powerfull people in the world today have gained their power solely through their election by the general public. This ability of the people to chose their own political leaders is rarely questioned, indeed, forms of government that do not advocate such principles are looked down upon as being backward and undemocratic. The ability of the people to chose their own political leaders is a cornerstone of democracy, the 'government of choice' of the modern world. But is allowing the general public to select the most powerful person in the world such a wise decision?

Take the position of the President of the United States - an office commonly acknowledged to be one of, if not the most powerful position in the world. Does the average person (American, in this case) have the ability to truly differentiate between the two final candidates, whom practically none of them have ever met? Their desicion is made over issues that the vast majority of the voters have little knowledge about, and only know what two very biased sources have told them? People chose the colours of their bedroom walls with more care than they do their president.

This fundamental part of democracy is critically flawed, and will bring democracy down with it when it shatters.

(The American system is flawed in many other ways, but this is just a more generic example)

The democratic system is deeply flawed. The main problem is that it is dominated by parties who only represent the people who fund them. In most cases this is very wealthy people. There were parties that were funded by the trade unions but these have now been taken over by the corporations. This is especially a problem with the first past the post system. At the last election the Labour Party had a majority based on getting the votes of around 25% of the electorate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...