 |
By *sianManc OP Man
over a year ago
Manchester |
Ok so I've always wondered this and thus going to ask.
Since politicians always vote on this and on that. Some get it right such as don't go to war against Iraq and others get it terribly wrong such as go to war against Iraq.
Doesn't it therefore make sense to collect all the votes of every politician and the ones that's got most correct or even all correct be put into a high position such as leader of a party or prime minister rather than simply voting on who is most charming infront of the camera?
Isn't democracy better served if it's based on merit?
Discuss |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"Ok so I've always wondered this and thus going to ask.
Since politicians always vote on this and on that. Some get it right such as don't go to war against Iraq and others get it terribly wrong such as go to war against Iraq.
Doesn't it therefore make sense to collect all the votes of every politician and the ones that's got most correct or even all correct be put into a high position such as leader of a party or prime minister rather than simply voting on who is most charming infront of the camera?
Isn't democracy better served if it's based on merit?
Discuss "
Yes but people vote for many different reasons so rarely does the best man or woman get the job |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *sianManc OP Man
over a year ago
Manchester |
That's why I feel voting should be collected at times and thus those the vote most accurately in hindsight to various situations be given better higher roles since they clearly are more in touch with that needs to happen.
I also believe these people vote for what serves the country and the people better morally and economically rather than those selfish politicians and lords who vote for what benefits their own pockets. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ok so I've always wondered this and thus going to ask.
Since politicians always vote on this and on that. Some get it right such as don't go to war against Iraq and others get it terribly wrong such as go to war against Iraq.
Doesn't it therefore make sense to collect all the votes of every politician and the ones that's got most correct or even all correct be put into a high position such as leader of a party or prime minister rather than simply voting on who is most charming infront of the camera?
Isn't democracy better served if it's based on merit?
Discuss "
How do you define correct and incorrect?
Say there was a voting between choices A and B. Majority chose A and we went ahead with A. After acting on A, we see that there ae some problems. People who voted for B will keep claiming that B was better because of the problems we identified with A. Unfortunately there is no way of verifying this because we never tried B in reality. It's all a matter of ifs and buts. There is no way to clearly say one option was better than the other. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *sianManc OP Man
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Ok so I've always wondered this and thus going to ask.
Since politicians always vote on this and on that. Some get it right such as don't go to war against Iraq and others get it terribly wrong such as go to war against Iraq.
Doesn't it therefore make sense to collect all the votes of every politician and the ones that's got most correct or even all correct be put into a high position such as leader of a party or prime minister rather than simply voting on who is most charming infront of the camera?
Isn't democracy better served if it's based on merit?
Discuss
How do you define correct and incorrect?
Say there was a voting between choices A and B. Majority chose A and we went ahead with A. After acting on A, we see that there ae some problems. People who voted for B will keep claiming that B was better because of the problems we identified with A. Unfortunately there is no way of verifying this because we never tried B in reality. It's all a matter of ifs and buts. There is no way to clearly say one option was better than the other."
Ok so I'm using the war in Iraq as an example s it's the only one I can currently think of. I've read and taken on board what you've said so allow me to share what I'm thinking.
Since the Iraq war we now know the premise on which we went to war was a lie. There were no wmds and there was no connection between sadam and terrorism.
We lost many soldiers spent lots of money and killed many many many innocent civilians.
We due to this crested disharmony and fuelled more hatred towards the West fuelling decades of terrorism as we see it now.
So during the time this was in the domain many thousands of people marched against this war and saw it for what it was a lie orchestrated for some other gain.
So in a nutshell I fell those that voted in parliament for this war in hindsight were wrong. Those that voted against obviously were right.
Surely the ones who were correct if alive should be moved into positions where more good can be gained since they clearly saw things for what they were.
Now this is just 1 example but I'm wondering if there was a way to collate all votes we could see just who is getting it right. Obviously this is an easy yes or no right or wrong example.
It's in these obvious ones I speak of using.
Not sure how else to explain it just wondering with all these politicians some who are for the people and some for lobbyists and some for their own personal gains if there's a better way for democracy? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
