NO ANIMALS WE DO NOT vote SOMEONE WITHOUT A GOOD REASON
- None of us controls the elections and their results, but each is own your vote. can be assessed in much the actual vote or have it for very little. In any case, the value that is assigned only real pre-election at this time: the day after the election, each vote is worth less than an expired yogurt a month ago. This is the time to enforce the vote.
He ended the "post" above the same name (part of a sentence of ZP) http://andresdelaoliva.blogspot.com/2011/02/para-ganar-las -elections-are-que.html with a few examples of ideological issues or impregnated with ideology here in Spain, compared with the astonishing statement D. Mariano Rajoy (MR) that do not have any ideological problem in Spain and our only major problem is competition , that is, I suppose, competent people in charge of public (and the semi-pública/semi-privada, reaching very great dimensions.) And yes, there is a big problem with competent people in public life . As for the PSOE, I do not need to say anything more with everything in sight and all that I said in this blog. But I dare to think what MR has been around, that MR may not be fair idea of \u200b\u200bthe dimensions of the problem. Because there is also in the PP. Clarify that, for reasons of age, and do not know anyone who sends something in the PP (or to send very little, the truth be told). I do not have, because of personal reasons to object to the current central leadership PP. I rely solely on external behavior: what they say, what you choose, what they agree on, which are silent, which does not fall silent. It is by the facts, then, so I think that Mr Rajoy is surrounded by a team of proven competence in different sectors of activity or a large group of men and women with mature personality and outstanding.
offer evidence test. Where is an alternative education policy PP, wise, brave and well structured? It is not known. And perhaps a lack of people trained and experienced in education, people more like the PP and PSOE IU, to work in this area? Certainly not that people lack: there is, but has not been seriously mobilized. On the contrary, I know more than one and more than two invited to the Education Commission of the PP, ended suddenly very disappointed and discouraged. Regarding Justice both give Lopez Aguilar, and Francisco Caamaño Fernández Bermejo and José María Michavila or Federico Trillo: meet each other, with their appendices, the General Council of the Judiciary, and covenant monsters that plague our Justice in all areas (I've already written about these monsters, but do it again any day.) But what in economy? We no longer remember the great signing, D. Manuel Pizarro, who sailed with great fanfare when he cursed the lack Pizarro was to get into the world partitocrático. Al Pizarro good after losing a TV debate with Mr Solbes, we were floored to boredom and neglect. Now everyone recognizes that Pizarro was right and Solbes, however, had only tables for surfing dialectical and, of course (for that was financial vice president) all-world data (truncated or not is another story) immediately available. I could go on with examples, but today is enough.
Some might say and now I'm hearing: " good, but compare with the PSOE you." For me it's no comparison. would be good if the standard of competition be established including a single factor as the preparation of Ms. Leire Pajin! Indeed, MR has not openly brandished his team competition by comparison with members of the successive "governments of Spain presided over by ZP: I would have been an insult to his own people and for the same MR. However, the comparison was floating and floating in the background.
But go now to the topic of most interest here, which is merits to win an election, and the individual level - that of you, reader, and mine-that of the merits to get our vote : do not control the elections and their results, but each is own your vote. Everyone can appreciate their vote and have it for very little. In any case, the value that is assigned only real pre-election at this time: the day after the election, each vote is worth less than an expired yogurt a month ago. This is the time to enforce the vote.
GOOD REASONS TO VOTE NO NO ZP, by themselves, A GOOD REASON TO VOTE MR
In the post "MORE THAN 20 REASONS NOT TO VOTE W. AND NO ONE TO VOTE A H. ", of June 26, 2009, http://andresdelaoliva.blogspot.com/2009/06/20-razones-para-no-votar-xy-ni una.html -I referred to great Julio Camba, in particular, his book " A year in the other world " which was the year that had passed in the U.S. Camba and, more specifically, in New York. Several chronic my admired arousano recounted the presidential contest between Woodrow Wilson 1916 and Charles E. Hughes, the Republican candidate. And Camba reproduced (or invented) this phrase: " 'I know more than twenty good reasons not to vote for Mr. Wilson," wrote one voter, "but I know not one to vote for Mr. Hughes'. Mr. Wilson, in fact, has many faults, and Hughes spent life brought. What happens is that, faced with these failures, Mr. Hughes does not have any quality . "
In June 2009 I was not beyond the appointment and a hint. Now I'll go further. Let us apply the described American situation from 1916 to today's English, but regardless of personal qualities, for surely our equivalent to Mr. Wilson and Mr. Hughes does not lack any good. There are over twenty good reasons not to vote Rodríguez Zapatero (ZP) (PSOE) , but how many there are good reasons to vote for Mariano Rajoy (MR) (PP)? There are those who think that 20 or 2000 good reasons to not vote for Zapatero (PSOE) up a good enough reason to vote MR (or PP). It seems to me that jump ("X not vote ... vote ergo Y") is not physically or metaphysically, as clear as presented. Exercise a little logic: ZP vote (or PSOE) is one possible action. And vote for MR (or PP) is another possible action, other than the above. There is some connection between them, because you can not vote in ZP and also vote on the same day and the same, MR. But the connection does not become maximum intensity, such as that between a cause and effect: it is undeniable that not vote ZP (PSOE) does not determine, either physically or metaphysically, vote MR (PP). You can, according to the physical and metaphysical logic, no vote and no vote ZP MR.
This undeniable right not to vote or to one (s) or to the other (s) is a major heresies against the Catechism System and enunciate only supposed to throw us over all content, which anti-abstinence plus content, which the "useful vote." content, which are passionate and interested that appeal to the visceral and fallacies abound. Basic these content, which is, above all, propose to vote for PP ZP hate to vote or hate Rajoy ZP. A lack of reasons and arguments, revive and breathe hatred, gut feelings. That fits the story irrational "they" and "our" .
Then there's the fallacy: if you do not vote or ZP or MR, because neither won over slightly, you are not a responsible citizen, it does not participate . And it is not you a reasonable person, because he expects or intends to perfection is not expected in electoral choices. The truth is very different: here we are taking very seriously the election date and use the vote that each belongs. We maximum participation and we are thinking, reasoning. And then to think and reason, we participate as if you vote to ZP as if they vote for MR as if no vote in either or not vote for anyone. The truth is that the catechists and of officials would like a system turnout whereby citizens flocked to the polls to deposit envelopes received by mail and enclosed with the ballot introduced in party headquarters. Nothing to think or reason, nothing to see which ballot have gotten into: as in the joke, "that would be contrary to the secrecy of the vote!" And it is not true that rational voters we are waiting for perfection in any of the offers : we are satisfied that we have a decent program and we are content with having a good reason to support any option, a good counterbalanced reason twenty or five good reasons for not supporting .
face electoral bids diverse if there are no reasons to support either of them, why would it be wrong not to support any? It seems, rather, that it is rational or reasonable, because not be defended as reasonable to vote for someone without any reason . The only bad thing is abstinence can be due to laziness. But that laziness is easy to remove: will appear at the polling station and vote on white (ie, the packet is delivered without anything inside) or nil rate. Thus, it is clear that one has not acted out of laziness and, well, nobody can sign up on a list of disaffected abstainers.
THE "vote" and the "lesser evil": TWO DEADLY TRAPS
For its part, the content, which the "useful vote" assumes that the utility must take precedence over rationality, which, as a principle or axiom is of great weakness. If you do not talk about what some other candidates and they can be useful, but the utility of voter Can be useful to me what I do against the dictates of my mind? The possibility of utility the irrational is found exclusively in the territory of chance, luck. But luck is playing the lottery or casinos. And, indeed, the appeal to "vote" applies only if the voter to vote to find reasons and reasons to vote B. You can then decide whether to vote B, because the pro-B results are more likely to achieve the vote in A, despite a slightly greater weight of his personal reasons to vote A. But when there is reason to vote or to A or B (or has good reasons not to vote or to A or B), what the voter would be to the value of supporting what he considers unworthy of his personal support?
To answer this question is then the thesis of " lesser evil." Some say: " yes, there is no reason to vote for A or B to vote, but because the success rate B of B is less bad than that of A ." And others say the same thing in reverse. The immediate consequence to some or other event as the "lesser evil" is that everyone just voting, inevitably, which, in itself, it seems wrong , because we have not found a good reason to vote for him ( or yes, just that against a good reason to vote for A or B are six good reasons not to vote or to A or B). But there is something very serious to the vote the "lesser evil" and which mediate or indirectly , systematic voting in favor of the "lesser evil" contributes decisively to perpetuate a status quo one considers undesirable for himself and for others . Election after election, vote the "lesser evil " prevents any possibility of regeneration and even slight improvement of things. The "lesser evils " even thinner, but growing to keep calling them strangely paradoxical "Minor."
And, in an individual level, the "lesser evil " convinced you are, first, abusing your instinctive citizenship and, second, increasingly disregarding your personal criteria because they consider your vote as conquered beforehand by the contraption of " lesser evil." Paradoxically, your high level of opposition to the "greater evil" causes the "lesser evil" do not make the slightest attention, not the least amended. Put another way: how they think that, in order to accounts and even via the "lesser evil", you " of yours", not paint anything for those " yours" made no effort to merit, truth, your vote. You see, instead, as if striving to "earn" votes inclined in principle to the "greater evil".
There is also a reasonable and more, even, when we must rationally put in the position of the "lesser evil": thinking about the least bad a horizon limited to four years until the next election. So, with that broader perspective, it may be perfectly legitimate and successful think that the triumph of the "lesser evil" short-term very likely lead to a "greater evil" medium term.
As I said (and certainly more than I'll have forgotten), it seems to me that, physically and metaphysically, 20 or 1000 good reasons not to vote for the PSOE / ZP / XX are not one good reason to vote for the PP / MR . Now for an exercise in imagination. Let us assume that according to the nature of things, which shows the clear difference between the option to vote or not vote for the PSOE (ZP) and the option to vote or vote for the PP (MR), two million voters determined to not vote PSOE (ZP) are targeted to the criterion "MY VOTE IS FOR THE CURRE" (or, if you prefer something more polite and academic, "MY VOTE WHICH deserve it ") and come with cold logic, first search for reasons to decide on the first option (to vote for the PSOE and ZP) (which only takes them a second, because they have seen over twenty good reasons not to vote or ZP PSOE) and then to look for good reasons (at least one good reason) to decide on the second option (to vote for the PP and MR). Suppose that a million and half of those two million voters, this method as rationally conclude that lack a good reason to vote for the PP (MR) (or have good reasons , weight, not to vote for the PP / MR). Suppose that million and a half of white voters decide to vote or abstain. How to influence that decision in the election outcome? I think the influence that the PP would not win the next general election or not win with enough margin to govern. Later. the PP would have to change or consolidate.
Except big news, which I find highly unlikely, I have already decided what will I do with my vote, although I do not want to say. But I mean and a half million voters condition their vote to the PP that the PP MR and the same MR clarification, should be strengthened with competent people and present a positive agenda, not too vague, it would be a pressure , it is possible a thousand different ways: each voter may find different ways and there is time- highly beneficial for this country . Because it deserves to be seen how many votes the PSOE, the PP and how many other smaller political formations . But there is no doubt that we, the English no longer deserve the same kind current policy. And if we could not change with the upcoming general elections, which, in a sense, it could, at least they should know that do not have a decent public support.
0 comments:
Post a Comment