Jump to content
Wertbag

Democracy failing

Recommended Posts

Here in NZ we have the local government elections going on at the moment.  They are reporting the lowest turnout ever:

"Voter turnout for this Saturday's local elections is heading for a record low, with the national turnout considered unlikely to be above 40 per cent."

In Wellington region - "As of noon on Friday, electoral officers lamented dismal returns, at an average of only 16.7 per cent - compared with 20.03 per cent in 2016.

Wellington city is among the lowest, at only 10 per cent"

 

The problems seen in NZ are not specific to our country with many Western nations showing similar patterns:

"Over the last 40 years, voter turnout has been steadily declining in the established democracies. This trend has been significant in the United States, Western Europe, Japan and Latin America. It has been a matter of concern and controversy among political scientists for several decades. During this same period, other forms of political participation have also declined, such as voluntary participation in political parties and the attendance of observers at town meetings. The decline in voting has also accompanied a general decline in civic participation, such as church attendance, membership in professional, fraternal, and student societies, youth groups, and parent-teacher associations"

 

There are many reasons for the decrease in voting, from the feeling of lacking impact and change, to access to voting booths, to the cost or time requirements or a lack of candidates who represent the voters views.  And while some suggestions have been made such as online voting or making election days a national holiday, so far there is no data to confirm that these steps will make a great difference.  They certainly can't hurt to make access easier and the cost to people less, but if you don't care about the process then those things won't change your mind.

 

What we find is massive amounts of people want change.  They don't necessarily know what they want it to change to, just that the current system isn't great.  In NZ we had a vote to change the democratic system from first pass the post to one of several other choices.  All polls showed the majority of the population had no idea what the different systems were, but that everyone was keen on something different, and so MMP was voted in.  Now having this system many people are saying it is either no better or possibly worse.

Obama's great slogan was "Change" and it worked as people love the idea, even when they don't know how things should change.  Maybe a bit of "the grass is always greener"?

 

I would love to see the system change to a technocracy, where people were getting office due to their skills, education and quality of their work, rather than how much TV time they managed to get.  Bill Clinton jumped in the polls when he played saxophone on TV, and yet most of the people voting for him had no idea of his policies.  Arnie as governor, Regan as president, Jesse Ventura as governor...  fame can get you to the top regardless of what you know, what you stand for and how educated you are.  I think there would be a lot of support for a system change, but I think the system is designed to make such change impossible.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine a democracy where those who don't know enough about politics voluntarily abstain from voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ToHellWithMe said:

Imagine a democracy where those who don't know enough about politics voluntarily abstain from voting.

You could give everyone one vote for being a citizen, then an extra per degree you earn, an extra for each rally you attend, for each year you volunteer, for each live debate you see and for any other metric of voter competency. 

Those who don't know or care get 1 vote, those who are educated and understand the options have their voice carry more weight. Skew the results towards the knowledgeable part of the population. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wertbag said:

You could give everyone one vote for being a citizen, then an extra per degree you earn, an extra for each rally you attend, for each year you volunteer, for each live debate you see and for any other metric of voter competency. 

Those who don't know or care get 1 vote, those who are educated and understand the options have their voice carry more weight. Skew the results towards the knowledgeable part of the population. 

Every degree you earn should grant you a greater say? This is only fair in a society where education is free of cost. Determining whose voice carries more weight by education level makes no sense when you apply it to a system in which there are structural disadvantages. 

If you want an educated population your best bet is to provide them with the opportunity to be educated free of cost. Not everyone wants to spend the greater part of their life paying off ridiculous amounts of student loan. But that's what happens when educational systems operate in a for profit capitalist system. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Democracy’s doubters tend to accuse democracy of suffering from at least five significant design flaws:

 

Short-termism: Due to their electoral cycles, democracies struggle to focus on long-term problems and usually remain mired in short-term policy approaches.

 

Pain aversion: To the limited extent they do manage to look to the long term, democratic politicians are averse to imposing near-term pain for long-term gain because of their need to keep voters happy for the next election.

 

Elite capture: By opening up decision-making power to competition among politicians who are constantly in need of money for elections, democratic systems are prone to becoming captured by the wealthy.

 

Division and conflict: Competitive elections foment or exacerbate destructive societal divisions, generating conflict and undercutting a strong sense of national unity and purpose.

 

Voter ignorance: Relying on ordinary citizens to choose leaders and make judgments among them based on policy performance condemns democracies to leadership and policy choices that reflect chronic voter ignorance and irrationality."

 

Certainly our systems only allow the wealthy to compete for the positions of power, while talented, enthusiastic people without financial backing cannot get considered. It is estimated that Hillary Clinton spent ~$700m while Trump spent ~$400m on their campaigns. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest, most successful companies such as Amazon, Google, HP etc never base their hiring policies on democracy. There's never a staff vote on who gets to be CEO. Such companies run under a technocracy, with consideration given to experience, education and historical achievements. Imagine a government formed on similar lines... 

 

You need a new leader, so a set of criteria are made (over 30, no prison time served, born in the country, holding an advanced qualification, never found guilty of gross misconduct etc), then anyone can complete an application form with their CV attached. The standing parliament debate, vote and work through the submissions until you have a top 3-4 choices. Those candidates are each given a televised 1 hour interview, covering local and global issues as well as their own history and achievements. 

The population then votes on their preferred candidate, with the result being a democratically elected technocracy. 

This way anyone can apply regardless of money, there are no campaigns allowed, everyone has an even footing, and you are basing the decision on quality not fame. 

 

For the GM positions, those who are given a portfolio to run, you have the leader go through the applications to narrow to the best few. Those within that industry then get to vote on the top choices. Doctors, nurses and those in the medical sector vote on the GM of health care, while teachers, principals and school administrators vote on the GM of education. 

 

Would that fix low voter turn out? Well... Maybe. You would be voting for a leader regardless of party lines and a second vote for the sector most relevant to your career. Voting for individuals rather than groups and of course sort out an online, secure voting method. I can see that inspiring a lot more people and with politicians held to clear KPI's we can clearly measure success and progress. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think politics is in the same, ''sham category'' as Religion. It's all bogus, fraudulent and misleading. People are frustrated and tired of all the promises only to see a few ever taken care of. I don't really believe most of the ''higher uppers''  in politics really give a damn about the low to middle class people. I had a best friend who is now an upper class person (and quite rich I might add) because her husband is very involved and high up in politics. You would never think she was once my best friend she's such a snob.

 

 Canada is no different with low voters..People have lost hope. We have the same fights here in Canada as the Us and anywhere else in the world. At least the U.S. is so much more fun to watch... as much as I feel terrible about what is happening to the U.S and it's people and I do think they better get out and vote to get the poisonous, traitor who is their president out of office..

 

Our Canadian politics are totally boring except when our Prime Minister dresses up in his many costumes. He likes to fit in with everyone. Lol

 

But after the votes are in, we don't get a say on anything anymore. They make the decisions once they are in and we are left to like it or lump it once they change their minds about an issue being the ''big head guy'' now.

 

We've almost become a communist country with so many god-damned rules at what you can do and what you can't do, it's not freedom. Yeah, we are allowed to open our own business and many others things that give people the illusion that people are 'free'... but we are not. They say we have free healthcare? Nope. We pay lot's of taxes to go along with the 'free' health care. The cost of living is through the elfin' roof here. Most people I know are  struggling to make ends meet and both partners have jobs.

 

People are discouraged and that why the numbers of voters is way down. I think politics and having these fantastic, intelligent leaders  (you know...we humans must be governed!) is a laugh. It is a hoax and part of the '' keep you under control system.'' Most politicians eventually turn somewhat corrupt once they learn how the system works.. I guess you can see I am discouraged? I think I am just going to vote for the most handsome one running..or maybe the prettiest woman. Or not vote at all.

 

Don't get me totally wrong. I am very grateful for the things I have and I understand that I am very lucky person to be born in a relatively, sane part of the earth.

 

Pessimist.....

over and out..... Lol 

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2019 at 12:40 PM, Wertbag said:

 

Certainly our systems only allow the wealthy to compete for the positions of power, while talented, enthusiastic people without financial backing cannot get considered. It is estimated that Hillary Clinton spent ~$700m while Trump spent ~$400m on their campaigns. 

Yup, the point I was going to make. Is it a democracy when only the wealthy stand a chance of gaining power? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Margee said:

I think politics is in the same, ''sham category'' as Religion. It's all bogus, fraudulent and misleading. People are frustrated and tired of all the promises only to see a few ever taken care of. I don't really believe most of the ''higher uppers''  in politics really give a damn about the low to middle class people. I had a best friend who is now an upper class person (and quite rich I might add) because her husband is very involved and high up in politics. You would never think she was once my best friend she's such a snob.

 

 Canada is no different with low voters..People have lost hope. We have the same fights here in Canada as the Us and anywhere else in the world. At least the U.S. is so much more fun to watch... as much as I feel terrible about what is happening to the U.S and it's people and I do think they better get out and vote to get the poisonous, traitor who is their president out of office..

 

Our Canadian politics are totally boring except when our Prime Minister dresses up in his many costumes. He likes to fit in with everyone. Lol

 

But after the votes are in, we don't get a say on anything anymore. They make the decisions once they are in and we are left to like it or lump it once they change their minds about an issue being the ''big head guy'' now.

 

We've almost become a communist country with so many god-damned rules at what you can do and what you can't do, it's not freedom. Yeah, we are allowed to open our own business and many others things that give people the illusion that people are 'free'... but we are not. They say we have free healthcare? Nope. We pay lot's of taxes to go along with the 'free' health care. The cost of living is through the elfin' roof here. Most people I know are  struggling to make ends meet and both partners have jobs.

 

People are discouraged and that why the numbers of voters is way down. I think politics and having these fantastic, intelligent leaders  (you know...we humans must be governed!) is a laugh. It is a hoax and part of the '' keep you under control system.'' Most politicians eventually turn somewhat corrupt once they learn how the system works.. I guess you can see I am discouraged? I think I am just going to vote for the most handsome one running..or maybe the prettiest woman. Or not vote at all.

 

Don't get me totally wrong. I am very grateful for the things I have and I understand that I am very lucky person to be born in a relatively, sane part of the earth.

 

Pessimist.....

over and out..... Lol 

 

 

Agree with all of this. Life is easy when you have choices you can make and aren't limited. The world is yours then in many ways and even disadvantages can be overcome somewhat. But add factors like disability and illness in spite of "free" health Care, the ridiculous cost of living, the fact many are in debt, the fact minimum wage isn't anywhere near supporting the cost of living, the list goes on...

Once they're elected, they're in it for themselves no matter what ideals they had entering it. I look at JT and understand why people get disillusioned with him, son of a rich wealthy prominent family, how can he relate to an ordinary Canadian who faces struggles he has never seen? When "democracy" favors the rich and wealthy you never end up with politicians who have any real measure of depth or substance to them. People gain character and experience through real challenge. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no perfect system of government outside the realm of pure theory. Meritocracy (that's the term for "let the most competent ones rule" Wert ;) ) does have its appeal but how exactly do you measure competence, and does that meritocracy exist in a system where competence is indeed the only thing that matters in rising to the top? It's been said above that, for example, if higher education costs you, it's just a mask for a plutocratic system where the richest will rule.

 

Looking at the Vaterland, many many people would support the system if they had the feeling that the system, at least parts of it, would support them in turn. If you're among the losers of capitalism (a group growing by the day), all the "established parties" have exactly one message for you ("..|.."), only exception is parts of the last remaining leftist party which is slowly being eaten up from within, subverted by neofeudalism just like all the other formerly leftist ones. The only party left that makes it at least sound like it cares for them is the far-right AfD - and the "established parties" wonder why they just can't stop them. Not that they really want to stop them because they really are convinced that the only real danger can come from the left. Rightards, up to and including neonazis, are basically seen as mannerless but "hey at least they aren't leftists amirite?". It's a plutocracy/kleptocracy - depending on your perspective - and this side from an armed uprising there's not really a thing one can do, so why would the common citizen bother to play along in the sham called "election"?

 

Sucks but that's reality for you.

 

And even if one county would leave the neofeudal imperialist western club, let's be real - the US empire would get them back in line using everything in their book, sanctions to starve the people, supporting "freedom fighters" against the "regime", or just march in and install profitable fascism. The change needs to start in the heart of the beast.

 

As I see it, unless the US get their act together and take their country back from the 1 % which currently own it, we're all screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thurisaz said:

The only party left that makes it at least sound like it cares for them is the far-right AfD - and the "established parties" wonder why they just can't stop them.

 

It's similar here in Finland but I gotta say it hasn't been yet established that our "far-right" populist party is going to betray the expectations. They are shunned by all or almost all of the other parties and therefore are not in power. It is yet to be determined how they would use the power if they had it.

 

I think it's a form of simplistic paranoia to assume they'd obviously bring back the fifties and the eugenics when it's only a small minority of their voters who seek anything like that. Most are just normal people seeking some common sense sanity and upholding the freedom of speech. It's a much more likely failure scenario that they'd just succumb to the typical mild forms of corruption and become like the other parties, accomplishing nothing much and stalling anything that threatens the status quo.

 

For now they have my vote. If they betray my expectations by anything other than mostly harmless incompetence, then I'll stop voting altogether again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Thurisaz said:

Meritocracy (that's the term for "let the most competent ones rule" Wert ;)

I hadn't heard the term before but gained an education, thanks😁 it does seem technocracy and Meritocracy can overlap, when education is the merit for which leadership is based. It seems the two can work hand in hand to a degree, as there are positions such as leadership which aren't taught but can be shown through achievements. Technocracy for scientific fields and Meritocracy for humanities and social issues. 

It feels like they have a similar goal of getting the most competent people into the roles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, ToHellWithMe said:

 

It's similar here in Finland but I gotta say it hasn't been yet established that our "far-right" populist party is going to betray the expectations. They are shunned by all or almost all of the other parties and therefore are not in power. It is yet to be determined how they would use the power if they had it.

 

Hoping the best for you then I guess.

Over here, according to its own publicly posted party program (alliterations just happened without my intention :P), while the AfD is promising to defend the 99 % against neofeudalism, they'll really just tighten the thumbscrews even further. Of course one has to 1. read that damn program to notice and 2. care jack shit. Can't really blame the desperate ones if they stay with that party as all the others basically just ignore the entire existence of the losers of capitalism. It's not rational... but it's human.

 

19 hours ago, Wertbag said:

It feels like they have a similar goal of getting the most competent people into the roles. 

 

Like I said, problem is how you define "competence".

"Technocracy" over here means the governments installed in the Southern European countries to supposedly get them out of their financial mess (which we put them into), bypassing their parliaments and ignoring any election outcome they didn't like. Competent? In a way, yes... if you define "competence" as "willing to execute the neofeudal program against all law and against the will of the people". You can imagine that I don't exactly read the term technocracy as anything good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2019 at 2:32 PM, Wertbag said:

The biggest, most successful companies such as Amazon, Google, HP etc never base their hiring policies on democracy. There's never a staff vote on who gets to be CEO. Such companies run under a technocracy, with consideration given to experience, education and historical achievements. Imagine a government formed on similar lines... 

 

You need a new leader, so a set of criteria are made (over 30, no prison time served, born in the country, holding an advanced qualification, never found guilty of gross misconduct etc), then anyone can complete an application form with their CV attached. The standing parliament debate, vote and work through the submissions until you have a top 3-4 choices. Those candidates are each given a televised 1 hour interview, covering local and global issues as well as their own history and achievements. 

The population then votes on their preferred candidate, with the result being a democratically elected technocracy. 

This way anyone can apply regardless of money, there are no campaigns allowed, everyone has an even footing, and you are basing the decision on quality not fame. 

 

For the GM positions, those who are given a portfolio to run, you have the leader go through the applications to narrow to the best few. Those within that industry then get to vote on the top choices. Doctors, nurses and those in the medical sector vote on the GM of health care, while teachers, principals and school administrators vote on the GM of education. 

 

Would that fix low voter turn out? Well... Maybe. You would be voting for a leader regardless of party lines and a second vote for the sector most relevant to your career. Voting for individuals rather than groups and of course sort out an online, secure voting method. I can see that inspiring a lot more people and with politicians held to clear KPI's we can clearly measure success and progress. 

Unfortunately there's a thing called human bias or outright favoritism. Like old boys clubs and all that. Seems we are wired for group think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2019 at 1:55 AM, Wertbag said:

You could give everyone one vote for being a citizen, then an extra per degree you earn, an extra for each rally you attend, for each year you volunteer, for each live debate you see and for any other metric of voter competency. 

Those who don't know or care get 1 vote, those who are educated and understand the options have their voice carry more weight. Skew the results towards the knowledgeable part of the population. 

     And you just disenfranchised most of the population.  But that is essentially your plan, isn't it?

 

     We used to have various "tests" at the polls.  It was used, primarily, to disenfranchise black voters (and other "undesirables but mainly blacks).  Here's a link to a "literacy" test.  It should take you no time to see that it's rigged even if you're literate.

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mwc said:

     And you just disenfranchised most of the population.  But that is essentially your plan, isn't it?

Bit of a accusatory tone there, I'm just spit balling ideas in the hope of generating discussion. As others have mentioned such an idea would only work if there was free education which was equally available. 

We currently have systems that do not allow most people to run for office due to the high cost of campaigns, we have growing voter apathy and people wanting change but seeing no way to get it. I actually don't see a change in the amount of votes or the quantity per person as fixing these issues, and would advocate for a system change to make things more inclusive as a better starting point. 

7 hours ago, mwc said:

Here's a link to a "literacy" test.  It should take you no time to see that it's rigged even if you're literate.

Wow, had never seen that before, what an amazingly rigged piece of junk writing. "write backwards forwards" just purely written to be confusing. I don't know if I could get that 100% correct and having to carefully re-read every question several times I doubt I'd finish in 10 mins. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Wertbag said:

Bit of a accusatory tone there, I'm just spit balling ideas in the hope of generating discussion. As others have mentioned such an idea would only work if there was free education which was equally available. 

     It was accusatory.  The whole idea rubbed me the wrong way (if that wasn't already clear).

 

     Even if education was free the idea still isn't workable.  People aren't always free to be educated (for many reasons: ie. work, family, health, etc.). 

 

Quote

We currently have systems that do not allow most people to run for office due to the high cost of campaigns, we have growing voter apathy and people wanting change but seeing no way to get it. I actually don't see a change in the amount of votes or the quantity per person as fixing these issues, and would advocate for a system change to make things more inclusive as a better starting point. 

     True enough.  In free societies I think we also have to accept that these things, at least some of these things (such as apathy), may be a part of doing business.

 

Quote

Wow, had never seen that before, what an amazingly rigged piece of junk writing. "write backwards forwards" just purely written to be confusing. I don't know if I could get that 100% correct and having to carefully re-read every question several times I doubt I'd finish in 10 mins. 

     Yep.  And that's just one of many.  I don't much care for anything that has the appearance of a test in order to vote.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, mwc said:

I don't much care for anything that has the appearance of a test in order to vote.

In fairness there was no suggestions of any tests or of removing anyone's ability to vote.  The suggestion was to increase voting not to limit it.

 

I'm not deep into politics, I have no formal education in politics and am happy to admit these ideas might have major flaws that I haven't considered.  Happy to be educated. 

However I do believe there is a better way to do things than we currently have, but the system is setup to resist change and people love their traditions.  Even if we can find an improved system would any Western nation be willing to take the jump to something new? 

 

It would be great to have a say on all positions in government rather than just in which party, it would be great to stop campaigns costing so much so there is the ability for the less wealthy to step up, it would be great if politicians didn't need money so much that outside influencers have great power, it would be great if we could securely vote online faster, easier and cheaper than currently, it would be great if it was a public holiday so those who are working long hours can get to vote without disadvantage and it would be great to know the people in positions of power are intelligent and educated in the fields they are covering so they can be making scientifically literate decisions on our behalf.

Change can be good, it just has to be carefully considered and done right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Wertbag said:

We currently have systems that do not allow most people to run for office due to the high cost of campaigns, we have growing voter apathy and people wanting change but seeing no way to get it.

 

I was active in the mid-terms, serving as a precinct captain for my party and supporting a particular candidate. We had a very good reason for unseating the incumbent but the national party decided that the seat was not attainable and thus did not provide any financial support to our candidate. Our candidate raised $9 million on his own from small donors while the incumbent raised significantly more, mostly from large donors from out of the area.  And when it was all over, 40 percent of the members of our party did not vote. The vote was close enough that if all those in that 40 percent had voted, we would have won.

 

Further, the presidential debates used to be sponsored by the League of Women Voters, a non-partisan organization. But in 1988 the two major parties put unacceptable demands for control of the debates on the League and the League withdrew. Currently, the debates are controlled by the two major parties. Only once, in 1992, was a third party candidate included and that was Ross Perot (he wanted to participate in 1996 but was blocked by the major parties). I personally do not believe that we will ever again see a third-party candidate in the debates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, older said:

I personally do not believe that we will ever again see a third-party candidate in the debates.

I have heard from unreliable media sources that there was a large part of the US population who disliked both Hillary and Trump. A third choice might have done well considering the choices available. 

 

I've heard many discussions saying Trump is highly likely to win again if he runs, mostly due to the lack of inspiring opposition. It would take someone of great fame to beat him, someone like Oprah or The rock, who would likely win regardless of their policies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wertbag said:

In fairness there was no suggestions of any tests or of removing anyone's ability to vote.  The suggestion was to increase voting not to limit it.

     I gave you a number of reasons why people could become disenfranchised.  Once I see others getting more votes than myself, or even believe this to be the case, I would not run right out and try to obtain more votes I would simply stop playing.  I would probably not even bother to vote.  Why bother?  The guy next to me probably can not only cancel my vote out, like usual, but then add one or more votes of his own on top of that.  I'm better off putting my efforts into other things instead of the game of politics.

 

2 hours ago, Wertbag said:

I'm not deep into politics, I have no formal education in politics and am happy to admit these ideas might have major flaws that I haven't considered.  Happy to be educated. 

However I do believe there is a better way to do things than we currently have, but the system is setup to resist change and people love their traditions.  Even if we can find an improved system would any Western nation be willing to take the jump to something new? 

     Have you read The Republic by Plato?  If not, you should (I should probably re-read it since it's been awhile).

 

2 hours ago, Wertbag said:

It would be great to have a say on all positions in government rather than just in which party, it would be great to stop campaigns costing so much so there is the ability for the less wealthy to step up, it would be great if politicians didn't need money so much that outside influencers have great power, it would be great if we could securely vote online faster, easier and cheaper than currently, it would be great if it was a public holiday so those who are working long hours can get to vote without disadvantage and it would be great to know the people in positions of power are intelligent and educated in the fields they are covering so they can be making scientifically literate decisions on our behalf.

Change can be good, it just has to be carefully considered and done right.

     I'm not sure I'd want to vote on all positions in government since there are thousands.  This is one reason we vote for representatives.  Public campaign funding isn't a bad idea.  I'm not pro-online voting (despite my IT background).  I do vote-by-mail and that's because I'm a lazy hypocrite.  I believe voter fraud is low (even though it is a common belief) but we have a history of voter manipulation (ie. employers forcing employees to vote their way).  Anonymous, in-person, voting helps with this while on-line and mail-in voting allows for this sort of abuse (which is why I call myself a hypocrite since I support a system for my own convenience knowing all this).  Public voting holidays are a good idea.  I'll also add wide availability of polling places that are properly equipped and staffed (we use volunteers and they don't always show so this is a tough ask).  It would be nice if people in power were educated but we have a lot of educated idiots.  I imagine Dr. Conspiracy Theory  would grab a lot of votes.  He does well in other venues.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Wertbag said:

We currently have systems that do not allow most people to run for office due to the high cost of campaigns, we have growing voter apathy and people wanting change but seeing no way to get it.

 

With the Internet, though, you don't need expensive campaigns to gain popularity. So it's kinda funny if people truly are apathetic now when it's more feasible than ever for a literal nobody to rise up based on their own merit.

 

The leader of the most popular party in my country used to be a linguistics researcher. Basically a nobody without any connections. He published an internet blog of his own as a hobby, and gained fame and popularity through his writings criticizing the most obviously insane aspects of progressive politics. He and many of his supporters joined an extant party and ousted the previous leader by winning the internal vote. He brags how his election campaign budgets are measured in hundreds of euros and the typical TV-advertising politicians can only gnash their teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ToHellWithMe said:

With the Internet, though, you don't need expensive campaigns to gain popularity. So it's kinda funny if people truly are apathetic now when it's more feasible than ever for a literal nobody to rise up based on their own merit.

Politicians do post on twitter, have their own websites and party websites, even hold online chats, but you get poor penetration when no one cares about your content. Sure YouTube stars can have millions of followers, but more often they don't. For every PewDiePie there are a thousand channels with less than 1k subs. 

 

In your example the guy was famous then switched to politics, easy to do that way around but harder to switch to politics then attempt to become famous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wertbag said:

In your example the guy was famous then switched to politics

 

His blog was political to begin with. It just developed into a political career because it was good stuff. He built it from ground up. There were no switches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.