THESE SEVEN QUESTIONS CANNOT BE ANSWERED SIMPLY BY 'YES' OR 'NO'
Have a go, flex your grey matter - just as a warm-up for real imaginative brain waves
WHO is the younger: a person born in Wellington, New Zealand at 12 noon on the 1st of April 2000 or a person born at 12 noon on 1st April 2000 in England? THINK ABOUT IT WHICH of two people born at the same instant, one in Wellington, New Zealand and one in London, England is the younger? THINK ABOUT IT HOW different would a passenger's baggage weight be at take-off from Singapore compared to that on landing at the South Pole? THINK ABOUT IT |
WHERE can one walk faster than time? THINK ABOUT IT WHEN is a particle not a particle THINK ABOUT IT Why should distant galaxies appear younger to us on Earth than those closer by? THINK ABOUT IT WHAT are the ages of Anne and Bill now, if Anne is three times the age Bill was when Anne was twice as old as Bill is now, and the summation of Anne and Bill's ages is 91 years? THINK ABOUT IT |
Here are a couple of topical topics worthy of some thought
Is the voting system democratic? I don't think so.
The definition of democracy introduces two opposing elements; "equal rights for all" and "a country governed by the people".
Why do those declarations seem to be in conflict?
If we allow - or worse, even impose the principle of one 'man' one vote we imply that the opinion of an intelligent, current-affair-aware, person carries no more weight than a down-and-out who's only concern is where his next fix, or bottle of grog is coming from. Would you be happy to allow such a person as the latter decide on the policies necessary for good government? I am quite sure you would not accept their opinion with equal weight.
We can't all have a direct say in the development of national policies; we need a member of parliament to speak for us. He/she then has a right that you do not have; - to speak in parliament, we are now not equal.
So it is then that we accept the need to vote for a representative who we expect to convey our opinions to higher authority. Here we have it; who should vote?
How can we separate the 'wheat' from the 'chaff'; those that think about current affairs versus those that couldn't care less? Perhaps we should have a test of eligibility to vote! What now of demanding (as in Australia) that everyone MUST vote.
The second problem comes with the choices presented; who should we choose?
It happens that the voter may be spoiled - or rather stuck, for choice. He/she 'tosses up' between candidate 'A' and candidate 'B'. Whoever is chosen, the other is cast aside as if being worthless. Perhaps you prefer character 'A' as a person known to be actively engaged in furthering your own needs and desires. Alternatively you may wish to support the political party to which candidate 'B' belongs. With only one vote you cannot choose both - unless, by chance they are the same person.
Perhaps we should consider a weighted vote where your preferred choice receives three votes, your second choice - two votes and your third choice - just one vote. The summation of these weighted votes would then truly indicate the candidate most desired by that electorate.
Do we need political parties at all?
Let's not simply accept the status quo - let's think about it.
Is the voting system democratic? I don't think so.
The definition of democracy introduces two opposing elements; "equal rights for all" and "a country governed by the people".
Why do those declarations seem to be in conflict?
If we allow - or worse, even impose the principle of one 'man' one vote we imply that the opinion of an intelligent, current-affair-aware, person carries no more weight than a down-and-out who's only concern is where his next fix, or bottle of grog is coming from. Would you be happy to allow such a person as the latter decide on the policies necessary for good government? I am quite sure you would not accept their opinion with equal weight.
We can't all have a direct say in the development of national policies; we need a member of parliament to speak for us. He/she then has a right that you do not have; - to speak in parliament, we are now not equal.
So it is then that we accept the need to vote for a representative who we expect to convey our opinions to higher authority. Here we have it; who should vote?
How can we separate the 'wheat' from the 'chaff'; those that think about current affairs versus those that couldn't care less? Perhaps we should have a test of eligibility to vote! What now of demanding (as in Australia) that everyone MUST vote.
The second problem comes with the choices presented; who should we choose?
It happens that the voter may be spoiled - or rather stuck, for choice. He/she 'tosses up' between candidate 'A' and candidate 'B'. Whoever is chosen, the other is cast aside as if being worthless. Perhaps you prefer character 'A' as a person known to be actively engaged in furthering your own needs and desires. Alternatively you may wish to support the political party to which candidate 'B' belongs. With only one vote you cannot choose both - unless, by chance they are the same person.
Perhaps we should consider a weighted vote where your preferred choice receives three votes, your second choice - two votes and your third choice - just one vote. The summation of these weighted votes would then truly indicate the candidate most desired by that electorate.
Do we need political parties at all?
Let's not simply accept the status quo - let's think about it.