No it's not. It's simply a rather poor attempt to justify laziness.Voting should be compulsory if only to stop people whining about how it's all so unfair, despite the fact that they didn't even bloody vote.
'Don't express opinions unless prepared to do something about them' - that sort of thing.
('Don't express opinions unless prepared to do something about them' - that sort of thing.
Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:08,
archived)
you will make people vote against their conscious simply becasue you assume they are lazy and whineymaybe they have a point that there is nothing for them to vote for?
(
maiden is filmed before a live studio audience,
Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:13,
archived)
But... but...I don't vote, because I'm not sold on the idea that we ought to follow the majority just because it's the majority. I prefer good government to popular government. That isn't the same as laziness or indifference.
What I do do is write to MPs, give evidence to Parliament, and that sort of thing.
There's more than one way to be politically engaged.
(What I do do is write to MPs, give evidence to Parliament, and that sort of thing.
There's more than one way to be politically engaged.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:15,
archived)
So you stand behind them and say "You're doing it wrong", but won't help someone you think better suited to get into a position of being able to do something.I see.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:20,
archived)
If I have something useful to say,it makes much more sense for me to do it by means of directly contacting the government, than by being just one small voice in a crowd.
In reality, the idea that one candidate is better suited than another is probably bunk. Most people are pretty much OK at most stuff, with a few flaws. It's a matter of indifference to me what their party is. What matters is their ability to seek, listen to, and respond appropriately to expert voices in a given field.
Like I said: I'm interested in good (or wise) government rather than popular government.
(In reality, the idea that one candidate is better suited than another is probably bunk. Most people are pretty much OK at most stuff, with a few flaws. It's a matter of indifference to me what their party is. What matters is their ability to seek, listen to, and respond appropriately to expert voices in a given field.
Like I said: I'm interested in good (or wise) government rather than popular government.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:24,
archived)
This isn't a loaded question, btw...Could you cite an example of where such 'wise' government exists?
(
J Peasemould Gruntfuttock Alpha Mike Foxtrot,
Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:28,
archived)
Possibly...Libel reform, the Human Fertilisation and Ebryology Act (as ammended 2008), and a few other things strike me as being wise. Ditto environmental protection legislation (though we could do with more of it).
I'm careful to distinguish between wise government and wise governments, of course. And I can point to any number of examples of unwise-yet-popular government.
Right: I'm off!
:)
(I'm careful to distinguish between wise government and wise governments, of course. And I can point to any number of examples of unwise-yet-popular government.
Right: I'm off!
:)
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Thu 14 Apr 2011, 11:37,
archived)