cdshaw@alberta.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (03/03/87)
In article <210@fornax.uucp> chapman@fornax.uucp (John Chapman) writes: >In my opinion democracy and freedom will be conficting >values/forces unless the electorate is educated. It also seems to me >that along with the so-called "right" to vote must come some responsibility. Actually, "Education" as it translates merely to "knowledge" isn't strictly as important as "motivation". People who don't see themselves as involved in the political process are not going to vote. My pet theory as to why some people aren't in the process is simple: They never have been in ANY political process, and don't see the benefits that such involvement brings. For instance, I never was really motivated about politics until I started running for office in a large housing Co-Op in Waterloo. My experience there, while small scale, helped me understand how representative democracy works first hand. Much better than some dumb theory parroted in "Civics Class". Of course, then there are the types who DO get involved, then get turned off by the small-scale haggling & bargaining that goes on. The usual reason is that the person involved isn't ready to lose on some issues, and also doesn't realize that real work is involved that is almost entirely unlike regular school/employment work. >....there was a 22 year old woman who wasn't going >to vote because "it just doesn't concern me". This was her first >opportunity to participate in an election and she just couldn't be bothered. We'd both agree (half in jest) that she led a deprived childhood. >There have been suggestions that some people should get more votes based >on their education, contributions to society in general etc.. I can >understand the proponents motivation in this but I think it is too >dangerous as it effectively disenfranchises the majority. These suggestions usually come from people with axes to grind. and armchair philosophers who tend not to realize that just because citizen X of The Great Unwashed is stupid doesn't mean that citizen X has no right to self-determination. The armchair type generally sees himself as a member of the group that would be super-enfranchised, and therefore a direct benificiary of such a policy. I think I understand the motivations all too well. If such people (armchair types) are worried about other people's stupidity, why not attack the problem directly? Instead of being childish about not wanting to lose to people nominally "dumber" than themselves? -- Chris Shaw cdshaw@alberta University of Alberta CatchPhrase: Bogus as HELL !