I Want To Write My Random Thoughts And Feelings
Voting seems like an anachronism in today's world - an idea which is as worthless as the ballot paper which formalises it. For one thing, there is zero intellectual thought involved when someone puts a cross in a box, nor is there any suggestion or proof that the person *truly* supports and believes in the thing they're voting for. The paper says you believe in the thing you've crossed, but who's to really know? It's just a cross in a box... it could mean anything, for all intents and purposes.
The problem with voting - if it is truly authentic in the way we're told - is that it gives as much power and say to the uninformed as it does to those who genuinely pay attention and follow along with the issues at hand. How would you ever know the difference between a vote which was done on a mindless whim, vs. a vote which is sincere and genuine at heart? The cross on the box won't tell you anything, and, in effect, renders the entire practice as meaningless.
In order to salvage and restore some credibility to voting, I believe there should be some prerequisites in place; namely - that you have to give at least *some* reason or justification for your vote in a sentence or two. It doesn't have to be in depth or at an Oxford-Cambridge level of understanding. Just a coherent sentence or two - underneath the vote - so as to inject a bit of sentience into the decision. This should at least filter out the disingenuous votes from those who actually care. And those who genuinely care would gladly put their "voice" across, if only in a brief sentence or two. It would also give a meaningful context to the idea that everyone's voice is heard...
In terms of how this system would be regulated and managed in a practical sense, I haven't got that far yet. All I'm certain about so far, is that traditional voting systems are antiquated and useless, and if nothing changes, it will stay that way forever. How many of those "EU" votes were well thought out and genuine, I wonder? Should such power be left at the mercy of a system which has no way of discerning sincere voters from those who just cross boxes mindlessly?
The problem with voting - if it is truly authentic in the way we're told - is that it gives as much power and say to the uninformed as it does to those who genuinely pay attention and follow along with the issues at hand. How would you ever know the difference between a vote which was done on a mindless whim, vs. a vote which is sincere and genuine at heart? The cross on the box won't tell you anything, and, in effect, renders the entire practice as meaningless.
In order to salvage and restore some credibility to voting, I believe there should be some prerequisites in place; namely - that you have to give at least *some* reason or justification for your vote in a sentence or two. It doesn't have to be in depth or at an Oxford-Cambridge level of understanding. Just a coherent sentence or two - underneath the vote - so as to inject a bit of sentience into the decision. This should at least filter out the disingenuous votes from those who actually care. And those who genuinely care would gladly put their "voice" across, if only in a brief sentence or two. It would also give a meaningful context to the idea that everyone's voice is heard...
In terms of how this system would be regulated and managed in a practical sense, I haven't got that far yet. All I'm certain about so far, is that traditional voting systems are antiquated and useless, and if nothing changes, it will stay that way forever. How many of those "EU" votes were well thought out and genuine, I wonder? Should such power be left at the mercy of a system which has no way of discerning sincere voters from those who just cross boxes mindlessly?
26-30, M
