by A swedish kind of death
Thu Apr 16th, 2009 at 03:41:49 AM EST
Inspired by conversations here, I drew on my political experience and structure up a flow chart for when public opinion matters.
Scenario: You are a politician and about to vote for or against a bill. A group of citizen makes you aware of their displeasure with your attitude in the question at hand. The question is: does it matter? Follow this simple flow chart and find out!
1. Can they affect you personally?
(Everything from a big payoff or nice lunch to being scorn at the supermarket or getting relatives whacked counts.) | ==YES=> | Ok, they matter. Weigh them against other concerns. (Like what benefits your position and power. Oh, and personal opinions if any are left.) |
||
NO
||
\/
2. Are they allowed to vote? ==NO=> They do not matter
||
YES
||
\/
3. Are they many or can affect many? ==NO=> They do not matter
||
YES
||
\/
4. Can your position and power be affected by voting? ==NO=> They do not matter
||
YES
||
\/
5. Will your vote show? ==NO> They do not matter
||
YES
||
\/
6. Is there another party/candidate, that is closer to their position? ==NO=> They do not matter
||
YES
||
\/
7. Will this be remembered on election day? ==NO=> They do not matter
||
YES
||
\/
8. Will they actually vote for an alternative on election day? ==NO=> They do not matter
||
YES
||
\/
9. Will that affect your power, money or position? ==NO==> They do not matter
||
YES
||
\/
Ok, they matter. Weigh them against other concerns. If you follow their opinion, make a big deal about it.
Some comments:
- This one is simple yet important. If politicians live in the rich quarter that will affect their opinions, if they live in middleclass or workingclass quarters that will also affect their opinions. Peer pressure is a big deal, so peers matter. If you can bury their office in flowers or angry letters and phonecalls, that also a way of reaching them. Obviously the threath of violence from deep state or terrorist actors can also sway a politician, though I have never found the bomb-throwing that some (far from all) anarchists used to do back in the days, a very efficient long term strategy.
- If they can not affect you personally or at the voting booth, why bother? This is in my opinion an argument for wide suffrage rights. And for that matter for democracy at all.
- Need to reach critical mass or have enough peoples ear. Not much to comment, shows the power of the media for example.
- If your position is insulated from the effects of voting, say by being a member of the european commission, then you need not care about elections.
- If your vote is obscured by secrecy or obscure ways of holding the vote, you can not be held acountable. For example if you are acting on the Council of minister. This shows the need for transparent, understandable proceedures.
- If their votes can go nowhere, it does not matter. If they abstain it is half the cost compared to going to a rival. This shows why multiparty systems are inherently (all else equal) more responsive to public opnion.
- If voting is far between there are lots of issues that affect sentiments, most can safely be ignored if the election is far away.
- "Throwing your vote away", "A vote for X is a vote for Y" and other great slogans goes here. Votes that can be taken for granted does not matter.
- Gerrymandering or designing systems that create lots of safe seats is a good way to minimise the threath of voting actually affecting anything. Party control over list another. Permanent grand coalitions is third way, it creates safe executive seats.
A politician following this simple schedule will stay a politician, one not following it will be voted out. Thus those in power follows it (wherer they know it or not). So this is roughly my view of politics, what is yours?
