Voting as Consent
Nov. 2nd, 2010 08:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lightcastleSome thoughts brought on by my earlier post and some conversations on the internet about "my vote doesn't decide anything".
There is a lot of talk from time to time about how inefficient democracy is, and this is sometimes true. That being said, more and more I've been toying with how voting isn't where you attempt to set policy (That should be done with lots more input to the system through activism and open communication channels, a situation that's pretty terrible in the US right now.), it is your chance to consent to the government.
In other words, if you flip the script of a republic, instead of sending someone to represent you, you consent to that person representing you. Democracy becomes about securing the consent of the governed, preferably in a legitimate manner.
I'm not sure this gives us anything, as I haven't followed it down the warren, but it might have some merit. It does explain why I tend to like the approval voting idea so much.
This might just be a flailing feeling of frustration having to do with the fact that we have so little input into who candidates are and how we steer them. Since they are picked for us, rather than we getting to select them, would viewing it as a consent process work?
This somewhat ties to the None of the Above option which exists in some countries, where NOTA exists as a legitimate part of the ballot. (With different options for deciding a winner if NOTA wins.)
There is a lot of talk from time to time about how inefficient democracy is, and this is sometimes true. That being said, more and more I've been toying with how voting isn't where you attempt to set policy (That should be done with lots more input to the system through activism and open communication channels, a situation that's pretty terrible in the US right now.), it is your chance to consent to the government.
In other words, if you flip the script of a republic, instead of sending someone to represent you, you consent to that person representing you. Democracy becomes about securing the consent of the governed, preferably in a legitimate manner.
I'm not sure this gives us anything, as I haven't followed it down the warren, but it might have some merit. It does explain why I tend to like the approval voting idea so much.
This might just be a flailing feeling of frustration having to do with the fact that we have so little input into who candidates are and how we steer them. Since they are picked for us, rather than we getting to select them, would viewing it as a consent process work?
This somewhat ties to the None of the Above option which exists in some countries, where NOTA exists as a legitimate part of the ballot. (With different options for deciding a winner if NOTA wins.)
Re: via network
Date: 2010-11-03 01:35 pm (UTC)