my case against some stuff...
I dislike the war terminology which seems to be appearing in politics more and more as time goes on. Podiums and stages are dubbed as battlefields, debates are nothing more than fights, and the "BATTLE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE" wages on now with John Kerry vs. George W. Bush. I fear that this terminology seems to influence people's thoughts away from what the issues really should be. People want their "side" to win. Down with the other side! Fight! Government, today, is made of up of Hatfields and McCoy's. It's a "Cold Civil War." To a family member of mine in particular, for instance, "Republicans" are "those OTHER people NOT like me AT ALL." Even if every facet of Republican understanding versus Democratic understanding IS black and white for some people, it is probably there because of an unguided allegiance to their party; the wartime diction placed into important political decisions and events fosters this attitude.
I promote voting. However, I had a thought to open for debate: Lets say every non-votor decided to vote. If more people vote, more people are not going to get what they are working towards. (Not that this will necessarily happen, but it's a concept, nothing more. And I'm not saying that this is a bad thing in and of itself...) I'm all about 'majority rules' in order to settle conflicts, but this seems like it will become nothing than more frustrating as population increases and time progresses, thus hurting the morale of voters. What is such a large minority supposed to do when all issues are turned black and white? The more people (thus, the more different opinions) in a minority, the less effective it is to base everything on a majority (especially since so many issues now such as GAY MARRIAGE and ABORTION are becoming black-and-white). As the minority gets larger with population, are we going to have to find a different way for everyone to win? We are already at a stage where there are practically more non-voters than voters. The votes don't necessarily reflect the needs of the majority, so how can we expect the elected officials in government to cater to the needs of the majority? OK, so lets all vote! Well, considering such a huge population in point, now we're back to the back-fire situation where a minority is at the mercy of a majority, but because of such a large population, that could have serious implications. Maybe we do need a large portion of people to be the unopinionated or unmotivated non-voters. I guess that still won't help the issue of too-large-for-practical minority, so expanding population is, thus, a time-bomb. I am going to have one wife, I am not going to have more than two children.
Population is already rising rapidly, putting huge amounts of pressure on energy companies, the food industry, and every other industry that I can think of. So, even if its not an oil crash, a huge terrorist bombing, or nuclear war, I am confident that something considerable is going to happen in our lifetimes that will effect our lives (my lifetime, anyways, I'm 22) in a big way. We need to be VERY conserned.
By the way, I am not making a case for voting to be the cause of eventual political upheaval to bring about "something considerable." That was actually a seperate thing that opened up the latter topic. The voting thing is a seperate debate. Sorry if my rhetoric discourages some of you, but I felt the urge to express these ideas while they were in my fingers.
I promote voting. However, I had a thought to open for debate: Lets say every non-votor decided to vote. If more people vote, more people are not going to get what they are working towards. (Not that this will necessarily happen, but it's a concept, nothing more. And I'm not saying that this is a bad thing in and of itself...) I'm all about 'majority rules' in order to settle conflicts, but this seems like it will become nothing than more frustrating as population increases and time progresses, thus hurting the morale of voters. What is such a large minority supposed to do when all issues are turned black and white? The more people (thus, the more different opinions) in a minority, the less effective it is to base everything on a majority (especially since so many issues now such as GAY MARRIAGE and ABORTION are becoming black-and-white). As the minority gets larger with population, are we going to have to find a different way for everyone to win? We are already at a stage where there are practically more non-voters than voters. The votes don't necessarily reflect the needs of the majority, so how can we expect the elected officials in government to cater to the needs of the majority? OK, so lets all vote! Well, considering such a huge population in point, now we're back to the back-fire situation where a minority is at the mercy of a majority, but because of such a large population, that could have serious implications. Maybe we do need a large portion of people to be the unopinionated or unmotivated non-voters. I guess that still won't help the issue of too-large-for-practical minority, so expanding population is, thus, a time-bomb. I am going to have one wife, I am not going to have more than two children.
Population is already rising rapidly, putting huge amounts of pressure on energy companies, the food industry, and every other industry that I can think of. So, even if its not an oil crash, a huge terrorist bombing, or nuclear war, I am confident that something considerable is going to happen in our lifetimes that will effect our lives (my lifetime, anyways, I'm 22) in a big way. We need to be VERY conserned.
By the way, I am not making a case for voting to be the cause of eventual political upheaval to bring about "something considerable." That was actually a seperate thing that opened up the latter topic. The voting thing is a seperate debate. Sorry if my rhetoric discourages some of you, but I felt the urge to express these ideas while they were in my fingers.