* What if prop1 (things the rulers believe is right) is the same as prop2 (the will of the people)? -- i.e. false dichotomy
* What if prop2 is manifestly wrong (viz. "the people" are fuckwits)? -- i.e. omitted possibility
* What if "the rulers of my country" are "the people" (viz. it's a direct, rather than representative, democracy)? -- i.e. bias introduced by axiomatic assumptions (that "countries" have "rulers" who are not "the people")
* What if prop1 or prop2 entail actions taken outside your country, in someone else's country (where the "someone elses" disagree -- e.g. an invasion)? -- i.e. how do you treat externalities
If the point you're making is that LJ polls don't contain all the possible answers (3 and 4) then I'd agree, but assume that was implicit in all polls.
The will of the people and what the rulers believe to be right may sometimes line up, but they won't always, and the question can be answered for those cases.
I don't see "the people as fuckwits" as being a flaw at all. Some of the people will always be fuckwits, and some won't. That's people for you.
There are no countries with a direct democracy, nor do I anticipate there ever being so. Any committee that big is far too unwieldy to ever actually do anything.
And democracy necessarily only includes the people inside the group doing the voting. Their actions affect those outside of the group, of course. But you can't vote someone else's actions if they haven't agreed to it (unless you're voting the use of force). c.f. Mice voting that the cat should weat a bell, or the UN attempting to vote Israel out of Palestine.
The interesting flavour of this sort of question is how far a party-affiliated MP should vote by the direction of whips vs. the views of their local constituency. While the MP claims to following the will of the people by listening to vocal locals, there is also the argument that people vote for the party manifesto 'package' rather than the individual person standing.
Yup. I'd say that they should follow manifesto pledges, because they've effectively promised to do that. Beyond that they should generally put forward the wishes of their constituents, bearing in mind that a national strategy will mean that sometimes your own people can't come first. And on top of that they should stand by their principles. If the conflicts become far too large they can always resign and let another election take place, of course.
But on the other hand, if MPs dont dissent or rebel, it restricts evolution within the party. They may argue that they within the spectrum of views within the party, they are at an opposing end to the current leadership.
A candidate may also quite openly campaign at odds with particular elements of the party manifesto. A prime example would be Tony Benn and quite a lot of the New Labour manifesto.
Oh, the poll was mostly supposed to illustrate the divergence I hear from people along the lines between "We elected them, they should follow our every whim." and "If I was PM I'd sort things out by doing X, Y and Z."
And hopefully. Lilian's got me a seated ticket, so providing I'm back out of work by then I'll be there!
Oh, the poll was mostly supposed to illustrate the divergence I hear from people along the lines between "We elected them, they should follow our every whim." and "If I was PM I'd sort things out by doing X, Y and Z."
That's what it got me thinking about, so I'd say you were successful in at least one case.
For me, the trouble with either of the options in the first question is that I have to trust one of those two parties. And I'm not sure whom I trust less: governments or the general population.
I couldn't answer this. I think leaders in general should do what they believe is right, but it just won't work if there isn't a sufficient level of support.
Therefore a leader will need to do both, depending on the circumstances.
The intelligent leader will try to change the will of the people to align itself with what they believe is right. A good leader will try to do this by honest debate. A bad leader will try to do this by deception and playing on fears.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I'm the first to get in the obligatory complaint that it's a 'black and white' question to a 'shades of grey' issue.
:p
no subject
I could, I suppose, have used sliders, but I'm not sure that would help that much :->
no subject
* What if prop1 (things the rulers believe is right) is the same as prop2 (the will of the people)? -- i.e. false dichotomy
* What if prop2 is manifestly wrong (viz. "the people" are fuckwits)? -- i.e. omitted possibility
* What if "the rulers of my country" are "the people" (viz. it's a direct, rather than representative, democracy)? -- i.e. bias introduced by axiomatic assumptions (that "countries" have "rulers" who are not "the people")
* What if prop1 or prop2 entail actions taken outside your country, in someone else's country (where the "someone elses" disagree -- e.g. an invasion)? -- i.e. how do you treat externalities
no subject
The will of the people and what the rulers believe to be right may sometimes line up, but they won't always, and the question can be answered for those cases.
I don't see "the people as fuckwits" as being a flaw at all. Some of the people will always be fuckwits, and some won't. That's people for you.
There are no countries with a direct democracy, nor do I anticipate there ever being so. Any committee that big is far too unwieldy to ever actually do anything.
And democracy necessarily only includes the people inside the group doing the voting. Their actions affect those outside of the group, of course. But you can't vote someone else's actions if they haven't agreed to it (unless you're voting the use of force). c.f. Mice voting that the cat should weat a bell, or the UN attempting to vote Israel out of Palestine.
no subject
Oh, why bother.
no subject
I was generally assuming a liberal democracy.
There is only so much one can do in a binary radio-button set :->
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
A candidate may also quite openly campaign at odds with particular elements of the party manifesto. A prime example would be Tony Benn and quite a lot of the New Labour manifesto.
no subject
It's a tricky one, innit?
no subject
Hence I wont vote in your poll..
:p
Watching the soggy fireworks tonight?
no subject
And hopefully. Lilian's got me a seated ticket, so providing I'm back out of work by then I'll be there!
no subject
no subject
That's what it got me thinking about, so I'd say you were successful in at least one case.
For me, the trouble with either of the options in the first question is that I have to trust one of those two parties. And I'm not sure whom I trust less: governments or the general population.
no subject
Therefore a leader will need to do both, depending on the circumstances.
The intelligent leader will try to change the will of the people to align itself with what they believe is right. A good leader will try to do this by honest debate. A bad leader will try to do this by deception and playing on fears.