Do you know, I'm actually going to post that.

[azekeil]

I'd actually vote for honesty over and above anything else in this election. I'd rather reward honesty because we can't even have confidence in what we're voting for will be honestly represented. But on the other hand, that would be like voting for democracy which I don't really believe in to begin with.

Comments

[shevek.livejournal.com]

It's quite obvious that noone gives a toss about me or what I want, so I'm going to do it the other way. I'll pick the country which has policies I most like, and move there. I suspect this works better than voting, which I am not likely to do.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Haha. Actually I thought about just that thing earlier. Where are you going?

Still, it's not quite as easy as voting eh?

[shevek.livejournal.com]

I haven't decided. I'm open to offers.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Are we thinking Cuba or Kuwait?

[shevek.livejournal.com]

We were definitely thinking more Kuwait than Cuba.

[whotheheckami.livejournal.com]

I'm assuming that you're describing the the political system we live in as a democracy? So, if you don't believe in it, what sort of system would you be happier with?

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

That's what the incumbents generally describe it as. I'd prefer something akin to a Meritocracy if it had to be similar to Democracy. It could be something simple, such as instead of a straight vote, a multiple choice quiz that asks some political questions with a section for your vote at the bottom. The idea being that those who score highly on the quiz have their vote counted for more than those who don't.

Admittedly there are loads of things I can see wrong with it from a practical sense (eg. how do you stop people cheating?) but I stand by the idea.

Idealistically I'd prefer something closer to anarchy. At the moment I pay for services I don't want nor believe in and have to pay again for services I do want on top of that.

I don't believe the benefits system is wise or fair. I'd prefer to see places (a bit like university campuses) set up where people who don't have enough money to live but are disabled so they can't work (full time or in standard occupations) can live and get the basics plus some much needed special services, while they can also get help to perform other services or make produce that they can sell to get money for luxuries. Richer people would look after themselves in their own homes if that is what they chose.

The other alternative which might help a lot with society's other problems is something much closer to communism with some capitalism thrown in - rewards for working together but being able to own their own stuff.

What would make me vote now is a firm decisive party who don't fanny about or change their minds, who can be honest and deliver their election promises.

[omylouse.livejournal.com]

I'd prefer to see places (a bit like university campuses) set up where people who don't have enough money to live but are disabled so they can't work can live and get the basics plus some much needed special services

Like sheltered accommodation? I think the best thing is to have more small home units like the one my brother is in (think student flats as opposed to campus arrangement plus careers at set times) since big places just don't work. The problem is that disabilities are all different, there is no standard level of care needed for each disability type. Individual assessmet and monitoring would be needed & that just isn't possible large scale. Plus small homes can be more spaced out allowing people to remain close to their family, friends & the areas they know.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

Yes I agree :)

[dennyd.livejournal.com]

The LibDem's strike me as marginally honest - at least they admit to the tax rises they'll need to fund their improvements. Labour and the Conservatives apparently can't even add up, which is a worrying start for people who want to be running the country (and probably will be).

[diffrentcolours]

I think your meritocracy idea (not that that's a correct usage of that word) is a good one, and I've advocated it myself, but it's probably never going to happen.

On the other hand, proportional representation is more likely, and one reason to vote Lib Dem is to try to break the first-past-the-post stranglehold and get a closer representation of what people want in Parliament.

[earthwyrm.livejournal.com]

I'm shocked that no-one is arguing for the return of the Divine Right of Kings ;)

If our 'democracy' was a true democracy then I'd have more faith in the system. Unfortunately true democracy is (almost) impossible to maintain on a large scale. So we're stuck with the men in grey suits.

[gerald_duck]

Honesty is just a means to an end. I want the world to be a sensible, safe, enjoyable and fair place. Voting for that, however, will get me nowhere, because to a first approximation everyone else is voting for their own personal best interests. Therefore, the best way to increase fairness is actually to counter this tendency by voting for my best interests.

So I want to vote for the candidate who will act most in accordance with my interests. A candidate being honest just makes it simpler for me to judge the extent to which they'll do so.

Sometimes, however, a candidate will be untrustworthy on an issue that doesn't matter to me. Or maybe they'll even be lying outright on an issue that does matter to me, but I can still tell that in reality they'd be acting in a way I approved of, even if they pretended otherwise. I can still vote for such a candidate.

I suppose it could be argued that honesty is itself a virtue for a politician, but I'm afraid I'm a cynic, and I don't see it myself. (-8