So - wasn't planning to start a mini-war on which specific form of more or less representative government is best. Or on which government in which country has made the most egregious mistakes. It seems as though, historically speaking, there's enough blame to go around for all of us to have a piece.

However, kaninelupus said: Well, it doesn't, but this actually goes more to the heart of my concern. Both history and psychology agree that people in exalted positions tend to come to believe that they know better than the rest of us about almost everything - and at that point they become dangerous. Therefore - in my opinion - everyone in a position of power in a government needs to be watched carefully by a lot of the rest of us. Those decisions and actions that the rest of us see as misguided should be protested - by letters, phone calls, or protests in the streets - whatever. They should not be simply accepted. And since I believe that the language we use does affect the way that we think, I find the increasing use of the term "leader" not only obnoxious but dangerous.

Gotta agree with you on this one. Checks and balances are useless without an informed population that participates. If you can't be bothered to make an attempt to be informed and vote, don't bitch about bad leadership.

It's not remotely close to a dictatorship, but when you keep re-electing the same people over and over again, there are a lot of problems. The problem is the fact that we keep retaining the ineffective leaders, not just excellent ones. Combine a two party system with gerrymandering and you get bizarre voting precincts where you can virtually guarantee which party will win ahead of time. Combine THAT with the fact that for some odd reason, it's considered high treason within the parties to challenge the incumbent of your own party for the nomination, plus incumbent advantages like mailing lists, fund-raising, pork-barrel spending, name recognition, having the bully pulpit, etc., and you are basically in Congress for as long as you want even if everyone thinks you're doing a really lousy job. Term limits isn't the best answer in the world, but it's probably the best we figure out something else. Incumbency is so advantageous that it's almost impossible to lose.

VernonDozier> If you can't be bothered to make an attempt to be informed and vote, don't bitch about bad leadership.

You are assuming people that do not vote do not have a conviction or reason for not doing so. Speculation!
Your allegation is they don't want to bother as if they don't care. Speculation!
And even if you can demonstrate that this two cases are in general true, how can you know that if they bitch about it, they haven't voted. More speculation!

Now, if we decide to continue with speculations, let me do my own. I speculate that it is most likely for someone involved in politics and that goes to the booth, that for someone which doesn't, to complain about leadership and those "elected officials". Since it is most likely for someone that doesn't "bother to vote" to not care about it, according to your statement. And furthermore, I speculate, that neither of you have come with this "original" way of thinking on your own.

However, I am quite sure it is not speculation that once a candidate gets elected, it becomes a representative. Representing everyone in the region of stewardship, even for the minority that did not vote for him/her or did not vote at all, to which she or he is employed of, and accountable to.
And if you can not come to terms with this, either you live in another country or you don't know what you are talking about, or both.

I'm speculating somewhat, but also talking from my experiences from talking to people/listening to people. I have some respect for people who have thought it over and purposefully decide to not vote as a way of registering their displeasure with the system or all candidates. That's reasonable. That's also a minority of the people who don't vote, I think. It may be speculation or at least extrapolation from my own conversations/experiences with people, but I think it's true. Most people who don't vote aren't doing it out of protest. They simply aren't informed and don't bother to participate for whatever reason. For those people, if they can't be bothered, they have no right to complain.

Plenty of people who bitch have voted. I never suggested otherwise. I may listen to their gripes. I tune out most people once I find out they didn't vote. The people who vote have more of a right to complain.

I live in the U.S., I vote, I know what I'm talking about, and I came to terms with this long ago.

I like your last response in the form that you draw of your own experience. And there's nothing wrong of creating your own ideas out of your on experience, nor can be reputed, nor refused that you have had them. Nevertheless, certain apprehension should accompany the reliability of our own experiences, since it might betray us with conclusions away from reality. Making us feel right when we are wrong. And you are wrong with this one:
VernonDozier> The people who vote have more of a right to complain.

The sentiment is that somehow, there's more righteousness, more honor and respect on someone which vote, that someone which doesn't, as a right of citizen. Far from truth. This is tool of deception. Used by some with established agendas, copied by acolytes, repeated by people which haven't thought of the malice emanating from it.

So - voting and bitching: is there a relationship? a necessary relationship?

Lots of people vote in the national elections for president. Many of the people I have known who have voted have done so because they believed campaign promises - most of which are simply garbage, because, as I mentioned earlier, presidents cannot make laws. So is it a good thing that these people vote? I submit that there is at least room for debate on the point ...

Far fewer people vote in elections for their national and state representatives, and fewer than that in local elections. And yet it is the local and state elections that include the people - and the referenda - that have much more effect on our lives than the president is likely to have. But on the other hand, many people simply don't have the time (leaving out the question of interest) to research all of the candidates for, eg, the fire protection district board. So is it better to just check names or to not vote?

As far as not voting as a "protest", I think that is just dumb. Nobody except your close circle of friends knows or cares whether you voted or not - so the protest is meaningless.

Besides, by bitching loudly (whether I voted or not) I have at least some chance of convincing enough other people of my point of view that the official about whom I'm bitching might get un-elected the next time around.

Pot calling the kettle black. You're one of the most self-righteous, judgmental people I've ever come across, completely confident in the rightness of every opinion you express. It bugs you when people assume things about you, but you make assumptions about other people. You don't make any kind of an argument. Just "You are wrong". You don't know me. I live in the U.S., I'm fully aware that representatives are supposed to represent everybody, I've thought my opinions through, I don't have an agenda, I'm not an acolyte, I don't mindlessly repeat things, I don't have malice towards people who don't vote. I just think everyone has an obligation to be informed and participate in their country's government. Part of that is voting. Find someone you like to vote for. If you can't, vote for the lesser of two evils. If they're both equally evil, I don't know, go on a hunger strike, chain yourself to city hall, write a letter to the editor, run for office yourself, do SOMETHING to be part of the solution. Otherwise, don't complain. I have the same attitude towards people who complain about how the school PTA runs the Canned Food Drive, but don't volunteer to run it themselves. People need to step up or shut up.

Good point - and having run the Cub Scout Christmas wreath sale, the annual banquet, and various kiddie sports events and fund-raisers, I now keep my mouth shut about them.

On the other hand, I have never taught professionally, but I work with adults who made it through 10 - 12 years of so-called education but can neither read, write nor do simple arithmetic - and by "simple arithmetic" I mean subtracting a 2-digit number from a 3-digit number. Therefore I feel perfectly justified in bitching loudly about the quality of teaching in this country, even though I have never "done it".

VernonDozier> You're one of the most self-righteous, judgmental people I've ever come across, completely confident in the rightness of every opinion you express.
That's your opinion of me, not mine. However you might convince me to change my mind.

VernonDozier> It bugs you when people assume things about you, but you make assumptions about other people.
No it doesn't bug me. I simply point it out when I don't have anything else to do.

VernonDozier>I don't have an agenda, I'm not an acolyte, I don't mindlessly repeat things, I don't have malice towards people who don't vote.
Never said such. Read the post once more without the heavy personal investment you read it last. Maybe you'll get what I really said.


VernonDozier> I just think everyone has an obligation to be informed and participate in their country's government. Part of that is voting.
That's your personal opinion which I called to question. Not because there's not merit on it to certain extend but because of lack of respect of the freedom of others in their decision concerning the right of voting or not. And the easiness (carelessness) with which you are willing to revoke people's rights. Just because it doesn't adhere to your precepts of fairness.

And since it goes hand to hand with your previous post declaration:
VernonDozier> They simply aren't informed and don't bother to participate for whatever reason.
Do you feel you are better informed? Do you feel those that go to vote are better informed that those than don't? Do you think ever why they don't "bother to participate?"

I summit that it is possible that if we all were more properly informed maybe we would be discouraged next time we are told to go and cast a ballet. Just a thought.


VernonDozier> If they're both equally evil, I don't know, go on a hunger strike, chain yourself to city hall, write a letter to the editor, run for office yourself, do SOMETHING to be part of the solution. Otherwise, don't complain. I have the same attitude towards people who complain about how the school PTA runs the Canned Food Drive, but don't volunteer to run it themselves. People need to step up or shut up.
That's your own opinion. And it is their own prerogative to do so if they chose so. However, your PTA example is rendered irrelevant by the fact that everyone doesn't get taxed by PTA, nor PTA is supposed to represent us, all.

VernonDozier> You don't make any kind of an argument. Just "You are wrong". You don't know me.
Yes, I made my argument, as clearly and precised as this medium allows me. I specifically told you were you were wrong and why. Yes, I don't know you, nor do I need to know you to tell you, you are wrong in that specific instance.

Browser error.