As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Our civic responsibilities as voters
grendel824_
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I'm sure there's no clear answer and that even if there were one, it would include some from A and some from B and some that I haven't mentioned, but what do you think our responsibilities are as voters (this is in reference to the U.S., but can apply elsewhere).
A) We should vote for what we believe is best for the city/nationa/(world?), whether or not it benefits or harms us as individuals (ie: vote for taxes that would fall in your own bracket and negatively affect your quality of life, even though it would benefit the country as a whole).
or
We should vote in our own self-interest, and trust that if everyone votes in their own interestes, our wants/needs would be democratically addressed.
A) We should vote for what we believe is best for the city/nationa/(world?), whether or not it benefits or harms us as individuals (ie: vote for taxes that would fall in your own bracket and negatively affect your quality of life, even though it would benefit the country as a whole).
or
We should vote in our own self-interest, and trust that if everyone votes in their own interestes, our wants/needs would be democratically addressed. grendel824_ on
0
Posts
That one. I don't know why we would assume that people's individual selfish votes will even out to the best course of action. It's perfectly possible for the minority to just get screwed.
Nothing complex would ever get done if we all voted B. Nasa? Fuck that, I want a playstation! Help foreign countries? No way, I want to go to disney land!
Only short sighted interests would be helped.
but they're listening to every word I say
Which is what can make it a far more difficult dillema to approach than if this were a true Democracy, but one which works out for the best. I may be in favour of Candidate A's environmental policies and social legislation, but disapprove of the forced sodomy of box turtles bill he cosponsored. Meanwhile I rather like Candidate B's understanding of complex economic problems, but take issue with his puppy slaughtering proposals. I'm fucked. However, if all of those issues came up before the hoi polloi every damn week or something odds are we'd never get anything done, or, worse, noone but the most rabid of box turtle sex enthusiasts even bother to participate in the process rendering it more illegitimate.
I'll gladly pay an extra 5% tax if someone is pushing for a plan that would make a real change.
Yeah, it is hard to talk to those people. usually you dont see them long enough to change their minds or they just wont listen to you at all.
I find that if you subtly work into it, rather than straight up disagreeing with them it works better. They dont just close up on you.
but they're listening to every word I say
This is not only cynical, but wrong. Mid-to-upper income liberals consistently vote against their economic interests, as do low-to-mid income conservatives.
This depends on whether you are talking about statistical interest or perceived interest. For instance, many mid-to-upper income liberals believe that they are benefiting from the happiness of others, and many low-mid conservatives believe that they will one day have climbed the economic ladder enough to benefit from the initiatives the voted for.
Because I know they will never get their silly unworkable fantasies I don't like voted through, I can safely vote for them. I like them as a minority party outside of the cabinet.
I think people in the western world more or less get what they ask for, provided they have the choice. The problem is that most people are either too ignorant or too apathetic to ask for the right things towards their own and the general best interests.
If you expand the concept of "self interest" to include altruism, the term loses all meaning.
Oh, I agree. I'm just talking about the stereotypical white-guilt person. However, I am all for affirmative-action type laws because I think that they are just, and I know a great deal of liberals are as well.
Well, it's not like anybody is assuming that - they're just assuming that it's more democratic that way because, well, that's the definition of democratic. It's not like we haven't heard of the concept of "tyranny of the majority" - that's why we're a REPRESENTATIVE democracy and have checks and balances and stuff. I'm just interested in seeing all of the different kinds of answers to this question, and I've been rewarded by seeing interesting thoughts on the subject. Yay!
I mean, I already mentioned that it wasn't an "either/or" kind of question. But I'm also sure there are people out there who probably do think one or the other is the "right" answer and might have intriguing reasons for it. And ultimately, unless you're some pulp super-villain, the best interest of your country/world is, most likely, also in your own best interest.
Some kinds of decisions are zero sum games, and some aren't. Sometimes the best course of action is simply to appease the greatest number of people, especially in trivial matters that still end up being a source of disagreement and end up being voted upon.