Wikipedia defines common sense as “knowledge, judgement, and taste which is more or less universal and which is held more or less without reflection or argument”
Try to avoid using this topic to express niche or unpopular opinions (they’re a dime a dozen) but instead consider provable intuitive facts.
Nuance is boring, voting and/or complaining is easy.
I mean, people are right about slimy politicians too, but they never seem to consider that it’s them that keeps electing those people.
How so?
If one doesn’t vote, a slimy politician still gets elected.
If one does vote, in most elections they can only choose from a small group of people who probably fail to represent them, and even if there is a reasonable option, they probably won’t win the vote anyway.
The system is rigged, when it comes to voting there usually* isn’t a correct option. Our political voice must exist outside of elections.
(I say usually, because a few elections are better than other, but generally speaking at a federal level, it’s slime no matter how you vote)
See, this is it right here. Anyone can run, but nobody can win without being slick and two-faced. The idiot vote is the largest block. If you get involved it’ll be obvious pretty fast.
So, you’re assuming we’re all American here. This applies to every democracy, including my own. In America, just add a probably terminal deadlock problem in on top of that.
And don’t forget ‘rich’, or more importantly, supported by the rich. A national-scale campaign requires resources that a typical organization can’t gather, and to win without such a campaign is miraculous in most systems.
Nah, like you said it applies to most democracies, even if America is an extreme example of these universal trends.
Well, in countries like mine there’s donation limits (with teeth). Middle class people are the ones you pursue for financing. That’s not really the issue so much as the majority of voters that barely know what they’re voting for - and soundbites or a personal hearty hello at a local event work wonders on them, while actual honesty or competence has little effect.
Refreshing to hear!
I haven’t looked into this but I’m tempted to believe that immediately. Election awareness is amazingly low, even among people who do have strong political beliefs.
Oh man, I’ve knocked on so many doors where people named the party they were definitely voting for, but didn’t know which level of government the election was on for. Like, they think they’re voting for mayor when it’s actually a federal election, for example.
That’s kind of extreme, but the fact it’s not rare shows you the level of actual engagement there is. I’ve come to consider public elections as more of a safety valve for when things veer into actual corruption, and am not so sure direct democracy is a good idea at all, anymore.
Personally, in an ideal world (and it’s feasible to test on a small scale like an organization election), I would advocate a certain kind of mass conditional democracy where everyone has the right to vote but must answer some very basic objective questions to verify they understand (e.g.) the candidate positions and election basics. The answers can all be found in an educational pamphlet published collectively with candidate approval prior to the election. The goal is to allow as many voters as possible, so long as they can demonstrate a basic awareness of the situation.