h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Ok, ok... I know *that* can never happen.

But can we trust the population to think politically when an entertainer (alledged) puts themselves up for election? How many will vote for him because: "Hey! He was in Terminator!"

And (putting my cynical head on) can we trust the general public at all when it comes to elections?

Just a few questions....

deemikay

I don't think that is too impossible, after all Ronald Regan was formerly a film actor, as was our very own Glenda Jackson, also Sebastian Coe was previously a runner before he was an MP. I believe though, in those cases, that a significant time had passed before they went into politics.

Only a die hard fan would vote purely on the basis that he was in a film that they liked. Anyone who cared so little about politics to just vote for the name that they recognised would be unlikely to even be bothered to actually go and vote in the first place.

Fair point about Glenda and Seb, and Ronnie had been active in politics for many years.But none of them are similar to Arnie... he is much more of an icon as an entertainer than they are/were.

I know people who voted for someone simply because of the ridiculous picture he had on his pamphlets (he looked like a James Bond baddie, honest!). They were silly wee 19 year old boys having a laugh.

I suppose my point is: people have died in the past to get the right to vote (and still are in many countries). But there are people in Western countries who vote for a laugh.

Arnie's probably guaranteed a win simply because people know him and he's not the "other guy". Does he even have any policies yet? (You could argue that Blair won because he wasn't John Major... but I know that argument is full of holes).

Anyway, just a rant.

deemikay

Whilst that's true, I would say that if people voted friviously on a large scale then the Monster Raving Loony party would have been in power years ago.

As some who was closly involved in the Natural Law Party campains, (at the ages of 10 and 15 respectivly - it wasn't my fault) I think they got a fair share of votes because they looked ridicoulus, but not enough for anyone to keep their deposits.

Also some may say that not having to take voting seriously means that the country is being run so well the majority of the people are satisfied with how it is. Take my student union for an example, very few people vote in teh elections apart from those wanting to get elected and their friends. Not because of apathy, but because the student union is very well run and it's internal politics have very little impact on the average student.

The politics in this country do not seem to have too much effect upon the people living here. However do you attribute that to the state of being so close to perfect that we cannot improve or the state of having the main political parties so close together on so many issues that the vote makes no difference?

Lets look at a hypothetical situation, imagine we did have a country that was pretty much organised perfectly. (I'm not saying that this is it), and most of the people recognised this. They were agreed that the way things were done was pretty much the best way to do things. There were a few small points that were still debated about.

How would polictics look in such a hypothetical country? The main parties I assume would not want to change a system that was working well on such radical grounds. They would instead want to change the small parts of the system that were not working well. The majority of debates would be about small parts of the system that were not working and the best way to change them.

Perhaps the reason that the main parties have such small differences is that the majority of people have actaully agree with the main parties on the majority of issues.

Perhaps, but how do you tell? If there were parties offering more radical reforms *with equal coverage* who were not getting votes I would be tempted to agree with you. There are two problems (1) People don't see as much of parties with alternative views and that lack of knowlage combined with a reduced sense of importance will make sure they don't get many votes regardless of how well they might run the country (2) Even if people were completly aware of every party and its policies there will still be a large number of voters (including myself) who will vote for a major party becuase they know that if they do not they may as well not have cast their vote and at least this lets them have some control over the minor issues.

Well I agree it's difficult to tell.

History, tells us that if the masses are dissatisfied then a mass change in polictal administration does take place. In other countries it's certainly not unknown for unknown political parties with mass appeal but not media coverage to come to power very quickly. Sometimes with a revolution, but sometimes through demorcratic means. For instnce the Nazi party were elected through democracy in Germany. I expect that they weren't supported by the media in Germany at the time.

I'm not convinced that the nazi party counts, it didn't get a majority until after was a dictator (had emergency powers)

Also be carefull what history tells us, it also tells us that new movements are generally stamped down upon by existing institutions, but in these more tolerant times we seem to be more able to judge a new idea on its own merits. Possibly because we have gotten used to being wrong so many times.

Also we are seeing a different problem here to what has been faced before. Oppession was achived with force of arms and overturned the same way. These days the stagnation is a result of a political structed very well geared to maintaining the status quo while appearing to give people choice. We have managed to formulate a very stable form of govornment, I suppose the question would have to be is that stability worth the loss of flexibility it entails.

Then again maybe watching too much Yes Minister has made me cynical.

The BNP won two seats in our last local elections here in Sandwell. What we have seen for far too long is a lack of progress and bickering between the two main parties. If you vote for other parties your vote is not wasted hopefully If labour and the conservatives see other parties making ground it will make them pull their socks up a bit.

They might start to concentrate on policies and not just put forward media freindly candidates to just regurgitate the party line which is what the Republicans are doing with Arnie.

But a media friendly candidate is worth so many more votes than a good policy these days. Correct me if I'm wrong but are you not supposed to vote on major decisions in a Democracy and vote for the people who make the decisions in a Republic? Communications technology is improving to the point that we could hold a referrendum on this sort of issue without too much fuss.

Yeah but we live in a Kingdom, with a constitutional monarchy.