Friday, September 19, 2008
Q4 - Fate
Several times the question of American independence sways back and forth based on physical representation of the figures in the room and not the issue itself. One majority tries to out maneuver the other and is soon thwarted as the numbers fluctuate. Develop a logical argument which JUSTIFIES this political phenomenon. DO NOT REPLY TO OTHERS.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
This is a fairly simple matter: If someone doesn't show up to a gathering in which a vote is called for, then that person clearly doesn't care enough about the topic being voted upon. If a person truly cares for their opportunity to vote, then they will be present for it no matter what. Even if the absent person's vote would completely change the outcome of the final tallie, that person lost their chance by not being around. It's not a tactic, it's just plain common sense: If you care, BE THERE.
It is important for everyone's vote to be counted all the time. The people of congress are representing the state and if they aren't there the state suffers by not getting their say. Especially if there is a tie in the vote, it is important to get everyone's opinion.
ALL votes must be accounted for when voting on a topic such as independence. All different opinions from all different kinds of people are required to come up with a solution that is best for the majority. In the film, the representatives keep trying to change things that they best fit the representative's personal interests. They must go back and forth arguing until something agreeable can be arranged for the majority. Someone will always be disappointed, but that's the way it is. Majority rules.
I feel as though it was wrong for the representatives such as New Jersey to not be present. It is just like in our class the other day, we were missing two people when we voted on whether or not to watch 1776. Without them, the majority decided to not watch the movie. However, since we were missing people, it was not fair and we re-did the vote Friday. Now, with the people being present, the vote swayed and we then watched the movie. It was wrong for the respresentatives of places like NJ to not be present because they could have affected the outcome of the congress, and by not being there they could not voice the opinion of their people.
It is completely fine to go ahead and vote with people missing because they are either undecided, and remain out of the voting, or they are not determined enough to cast their opinion. If it was crucial for a missing representative to vote then he could send a messenger or try harder to be there in person.
Every single American should have their say in government. They do this by telling their representative what they want and then he brings the ideas to congress to be voted on. A problem arises when some of the representatives are absent from congress when voting on a major issue such as independence. Without all the representatives there, not all American citizens are allowed their say in government. This can effect the Congress in a very negative way.
I agree that if someone doesnt show up, they obviously don't care enough about their role in the government. Although, sometimes there are exceptions, such as the guy with cancer(i forget his name). If he was absent, it would be because he was to sick to make it, and his vote should still count. Someone should be sent to him to get his vote. However, if its just an unexplained absence, like new jersey, their vote is justly forgotten about. It may not be completely fair to the minority, but majority rules. If most people want something, and only a few are opposed, the people get what they want. If we didnt act until everyone agreed nothing would ever get done. There is always someone against change, but if most people want it, they should get it
i believe that by not showing up, you don't care enough for the topic that is at hand. In the movie, take New York for example. The representative knew every time he attended that he would not be able to vote on anything, yet he showed up anyways. He clearly cares enough, but is under obligation to abstain. The other colonies should take a lesson from his dedication.
Everyone matters,whether or not the person cares enough to give there vote is another matter entirely. That person has the ability to have the final vote which in that case could have decided on whether they were independent or not.
I think that if the matter at hand is important to someone, then they will show up and put their input or vote or whatever on the matter. If someone has made the choice not to show it, it is either due to their choice of being undecided or not caring enough about the matter. As important as it is to get everyone's input, it's not always going to happen.
As a member of a group, or say the Continental Congress, it's part of your job to show up, you probably either were elected to this position or you chose to be there. So when you're not present you give up your right to a say on things. Although i think the fact that people might not be there, really affects the decision, and technically it's not the whole groups opinion, if you're not there, it's your fault!
As in any war, a political skirmish largely depends on numbers. If one side has larger numbers, especially in a Congress with a limited number of voting members, every voter counts. Therefore, if one voter decides not to show up, or to abstain, or to switch allegiance, etc., then the majority swings to the other side, and the other side 'wins' for the moment. And as in all democracies, majority rules.
Well in general when people think one way and all of a sudden a majority of the people are thinking the opposite way it's quit common for those original people to switch sides. The reason being is that they want to fit in and not look different. So basically in fear people find it easier to fit in rather than stand out and voice their own opinions.
If somebody is not present when the vote takes place then you can't wait around like idiots and hope he returns some time in the near future, and you can't vote for him so you make do with what you have.
When debatinga topic as important as independance all members that have a vote must be present for the final saying to be made. When not all voters are accounted for a improper decision may be made. Just like in class the other day like freejack said.
this tends to happen a lot in politics. someone says something then changes their stance. john kerry was critisized for "flip floping". and we can see this in john mccain. if we look at what he has said and voted for in the past to what he's saying now, on certian critical issues they have become the complete opposite. this may be that he's now representing himself instead of the state of arizona, or that in new evidence of events has simply changed his mind, and i think that this goes for all people either two hundred thirty two years ago or now. so i say there is no logical answer but that it is quite simply human nature.
When Ben Franklin was sleeping, the delegates from NJ weren't around, and everyone was fed-up with John Adams, obviously the men against independence took charge. They were able to speak their piece and it was hard for the pro-independence people to make a good stand. However, as soon as someone new (LEE) proposes the idea, it seems fresh and more favor is felt on the side of independence. People naturally give in to peer pressure or are easily persuaded by "sweet-talkers" who are a good with words. This alows the political "sea-saw" phenomenon to occur. Everytime a new delegate arrived, everyone was quick to ask where they stood on the topic of independence. Depending on their answer and the motive behind it, they could easily suck in followers. Whoever provides the strongest argument, that makes the most sense, with the most supporters will appeal to the majority, but as soon as one of these is tipped in the other direction the majority may change their minds.
A political phenomena that occured relativly recently was that of enviromental recycling and wellness. Al Gore and his documentary an 'Unconvinient Truth' stired the pot on the know but rarely talked about issue of global warming. When Gore was around many people focused there attention of the enviroment and not on other issues. Also it is VERY important for everyone to be present when taking a vote. Much like that of the movie 1776, where the delegate from Rhode Island swayed the entire balet toward independence.
Generally, when debating or voting on a topic, there will be a number of people that are in the background. They have their own opinion and they will stick to that. They might listen to other's opinions, hopefully, and they might change their initial opinion, but they might not be the most outspoken or active. Even in the film, there are quite a few men that do not share their reasoning for their beliefs. That's just the way they are. But their vote still counts. Some might end up unhappy because there is not always a perfect solution to everything to make everyone happy. You can tell who is passionate about how they feel and you can tell who may be indecisive and just going with the flow.
I dissagree with Lizzy's first comment, if a person is physically incapable of turning up for a vote it is not that they dont care it is that they are physiccally incapable of attending. I believe that for some instances all votes should be taken in to account where as in others where time is of essence, the speed with which a desicion is reached should and often does take presedence.
Voting is a numbers game. If one is to vote and doesn't physically show up for it or have a legit excuse not to be there (and you know, do something about not being there - send a replacement), their vote will not be counted. If you're determined to give your opinion, then you should be there to participate, I suppose. In 1776, one representative from Delaware shows up to cast his vote for independence, despite failing health; once he left, the voting numbers shifted as the other Delaware representative wished to vote against independence. This is one area in politics where you really can say that one vote makes a difference. Since not everyone has to agree, it's all about getting numbers to one side's favor.
" on any matter you stay off to the side so if it may go under you still stay afloat!". This may intimidate some to the point that they may want to abstain or not even put in their word because they are afraid they may make the wrong decition.
This numbers game is justified in that it is very hard to get every single person needed to show up, because of various reasons. The more people you try to get together all at the same time, the harder it is. There are more conflicts & disagreements between the voters. Although it is not fair at all to someone proposing an idea, not to have everyone's input to it, there's not much else to do than what they do; work around it.
This political phenomenon allows delegates to show up in congress only when they need their vote to count. One day a majority might think their view is favored and then the next day a bunch of delegates show up who make up another majority and the vote sways back and forth as delegates come and go. This is favorable for delegates because they don't have to be bored by the everyday business of congress, but when the majority they are a part of needs their vote, they can be there.
Votes do sometimes come down to who showed up and who didn't. it does seem to have a lot to do with fate, but that doesn't change the fact that its not fair. on the other hand, an urgent decision could be at hand(like the revolution) and there may be a shortage of time. in that case, they may have to vote anyways. in other cases though, it probably isn't justified.
Post a Comment