How is it fair to one side of a topic to have a vote when their allies are not present? Say someone is ill or has some other issue that keeps them from being present for a vote on an issue that is very important, how are they going feel knowing that if they had been present then they're side of the vote would have been passed? And it isn't fair to the people represented by the absent person because without that person around, they aren't being represented at all!
There are disadvantages to the "numbers game". If the representative couldn't be there due to an illness or a family matter it isn't fair to the people of that state. It is always important to let each person have their say.
The "numbers game" is wrong because an issue as critical as independence can not have any "if's, and's, or but's". What i mean by this is that is that since it is such a critical matter, every vote counts and the people should all be represented. It should not be decided by which opposition has more yays or nays, but by having everyones vote there to see where the majority really does lie.
It is unfair to hold a vote on critical issues without full representation. If it is okay to vote with a couple people missing then, eventually, it will be alright to vote with only a couple people present. Soon enough there will be one person making all of the choices just because the meetings are held near him or some other circumstance.
Voting has its many flaws. If ANYONE is allowed to vote, they may just pick the candidate or idea that has the prettiest face. I hate it when people say things like, "oh, I think I'll vote for this person because he/she plays the guitar and has a nice smile." The numbers may be tied because half of the voters only voted for the prettier candidate!The voters scare me more than the politicians do. This is why debates are so important. The voters should be required to watch the debates and be well-informed of the ideas of all the candidates. I think in the "numbers game" is the best system IF the voters see all sides of each idea of each candidate.
Representatives do not just deside not to go to Congress because they don't want to, all the time. Usually they have some sort of illness or family matter that needs to be taken care of instead. When this occurs, though, it can be almost disastrous as to how the voting goes. That is why their should be multiple representaives from each state and it should be manditory that at least one of them attends each Congressional meeting.
while it may be difficult, i think that for an accurate voting system to be in order, each and every citizen or representative should attend. it is their duty as a member of their community and the country they live in to share their opinions on how things should be.
The "numbers game" isn't always a fair deal. When voting on issues, especially ones as big as independence, it is crucial to have all representatives present. It's not fair to the people if their representative can't show up to put their input in on matter due to personal reasons.
When people aren't present it could either hurt you or help you. But for the most part, it's not fair! If a person had a legit reason not to be there, then they should have a chance to vote or share their opinion. When people on your side are nto present, it could really lose you an argument.
In order to have a fair vote, all voting members have to be present and capable of making an informed, coherent, and well-thought out decision (hint, RI delegate). If some members are not present, then they cannot only not cast their vote, but they cannot contribute anything to the knowledge and decisions of others, thereby making the voted-upon decision of a lesser quality than it otherwise would have been.
OK here is an example to what I said referring to the previous question. I'm not sure if it's what your looking for but here it goes. It refers to the movie we watched on the Salem witch trials. When the majority of the group thought they felt a mysterious force there was one person who didn't feel it. However at the very end when they asked who felt a presence they ALL said yes. When they asked the person who had said no at first and then yes at the end why he changed his mind he said it was because he didn't want to be the only one who didn't feel the presence. So in a sense he felt left out. This is similar to what happens when people debate about certain arguments such as independence. They change their minds to agree with majority of the people to fit in.
If people are missing and a critical issue is decided then the missing persons will feel as if they had no say in the matter, and it will be very hard to get them to go along with what was decided.
When not all members are accounted for then the issue must not be important as it seems. On an issue is important as independance all people must be present and they should vote for what the people of their colonies are asking for. The topic should be debated until all members agree, unless there is a few stubborn people who dont even care to listen to the arguments and already have their mind set on what they want because they are too over-egoed.
It is highly unwise to take a vote when not everyone is present. In 1776, New Jersey was not present when the vote was taken to write the declaration of independence. That vote could have swayed the entire outcome of the revolution against England. Independence is mainly a once in a lifetime ordeal in which all must be present for both the historic vote and the outcome of the forsaken vote.
A great example from the movie: Caesar must leave the Congress due to his fatal conditions, and upon his leave for home he apoligizes to John Adams. Why? - all because of the "numbers game". He apoligizes because he leaves John Adams a "devided Delaware", in other words a Delware delegate for Independence and one against it. Had he been healthy and able to stay, he would have voted for independence making Delaware a colony totally for independence. In this instance, we can see how unfair the reality of the "numbers game" truly is; one man's absence (or attendence) may make all the difference in the world.
Depending on the topic (being independence), it is very critical that each person, who is contributing to whether the law passes or not, is present. If they cannot be present because of an illness or another serious matter, then the session should be postponed. Every person who is expected to participate should participate. A matter that they cannot prevent should not cause them to be shoved out of the circle. Especially when it comes down to a critical subject, every person needs to be able to join in order to get the full effect.
An argument? uhh, well, something to stress is that the "numbers game" is unfair. Proper representation isn't really proper when all who should be present to represent others can NOT be there to fulfill their duty; bad things happen that hinder people and can't be helped! The "numbers game" may even be open to sabotage. It's kind of a stretch, but if someone's mysteriously sick/poisoned or killed or...something, they can't attend, and a replacement may be very different from the first person/not come up in time.
I would be absolutely beside myself if my swing vote was not present for a ny reason, if you are ill then send a person in your stead. It is truly imperative that someone be there.
people are constantly switching tacts and never sticking to a resolution for long enough, unless they are the ones who drempt it up in the first place. as a reasult you can never rely on someone to back you unless they had a hand in creating the resolution you are supporting. this just reinforces that people cannot be trusted and that people are dishonest and this creates harsh feelings between the new states of the new nation that above all must stick together, to defeat the seemingly common enemy.
This "numbers game" is not fair to all members of the congress. Not all delegates could play this game because then there could be days when the congress room was empty, but the game doesn't have rules so some get to play and others don't. It'd be like if most people skipped class every day except for the one pre-announced day when the teacher took attendance. Those who didn't go to class every day didn't have to be bothered with the bordom of sitting in class, but when attendance was taken, and they needed to be in class, they were there and got the credit just like those who went to class each day. And it would make the situation even less fair if on attendance day (when everyone was present) the class voted on what book they would read and the majority voted on "The Life Cycle of a Fruit Flay", but the minority of people, who would be the ones reading in class each day preferred "A History of Pirate Names". Even though the people who actually showed up to calss didn't want the fruit fly book, the general majority, made up mostly of those who didn't come to class, twarted them.
the "numbers game" is just another variable in the political science equation. to think that everyone will be present, that everyone will be a clean vote, and that nothing will go wrong is fairly idealistic. the "numbers game" may not be fair, nut sometimes it is inevitable, other, it is a political ploy. either way, it is only a small flaw in democracy(which isn't perfect). to be fair, either side can work this into a victory or gain so sometimes it is fair when all sides can use it.
i agree with Black lizzy again on this one. Actually i seem to agree with you on alot lizzy lol. The numbers game just sucks to be honest. There is always an exception like pink pointed out, family, illness, etc. Its certainly not fair to vote without everyone present, yet if someone just did not feel like showing up, that is their decision to give up their vote. Emergencies are another story. Their vote has not been willingly thrown away, they just aren't able to make an appearance.
23 comments:
How is it fair to one side of a topic to have a vote when their allies are not present? Say someone is ill or has some other issue that keeps them from being present for a vote on an issue that is very important, how are they going feel knowing that if they had been present then they're side of the vote would have been passed? And it isn't fair to the people represented by the absent person because without that person around, they aren't being represented at all!
There are disadvantages to the "numbers game". If the representative couldn't be there due to an illness or a family matter it isn't fair to the people of that state. It is always important to let each person have their say.
The "numbers game" is wrong because an issue as critical as independence can not have any "if's, and's, or but's". What i mean by this is that is that since it is such a critical matter, every vote counts and the people should all be represented. It should not be decided by which opposition has more yays or nays, but by having everyones vote there to see where the majority really does lie.
It is unfair to hold a vote on critical issues without full representation. If it is okay to vote with a couple people missing then, eventually, it will be alright to vote with only a couple people present. Soon enough there will be one person making all of the choices just because the meetings are held near him or some other circumstance.
Voting has its many flaws. If ANYONE is allowed to vote, they may just pick the candidate or idea that has the prettiest face. I hate it when people say things like, "oh, I think I'll vote for this person because he/she plays the guitar and has a nice smile." The numbers may be tied because half of the voters only voted for the prettier candidate!The voters scare me more than the politicians do. This is why debates are so important. The voters should be required to watch the debates and be well-informed of the ideas of all the candidates. I think in the "numbers game" is the best system IF the voters see all sides of each idea of each candidate.
Representatives do not just deside not to go to Congress because they don't want to, all the time. Usually they have some sort of illness or family matter that needs to be taken care of instead. When this occurs, though, it can be almost disastrous as to how the voting goes. That is why their should be multiple representaives from each state and it should be manditory that at least one of them attends each Congressional meeting.
while it may be difficult, i think that for an accurate voting system to be in order, each and every citizen or representative should attend. it is their duty as a member of their community and the country they live in to share their opinions on how things should be.
The "numbers game" isn't always a fair deal. When voting on issues, especially ones as big as independence, it is crucial to have all representatives present. It's not fair to the people if their representative can't show up to put their input in on matter due to personal reasons.
When people aren't present it could either hurt you or help you. But for the most part, it's not fair! If a person had a legit reason not to be there, then they should have a chance to vote or share their opinion. When people on your side are nto present, it could really lose you an argument.
In order to have a fair vote, all voting members have to be present and capable of making an informed, coherent, and well-thought out decision (hint, RI delegate). If some members are not present, then they cannot only not cast their vote, but they cannot contribute anything to the knowledge and decisions of others, thereby making the voted-upon decision of a lesser quality than it otherwise would have been.
OK here is an example to what I said referring to the previous question. I'm not sure if it's what your looking for but here it goes. It refers to the movie we watched on the Salem witch trials. When the majority of the group thought they felt a mysterious force there was one person who didn't feel it. However at the very end when they asked who felt a presence they ALL said yes. When they asked the person who had said no at first and then yes at the end why he changed his mind he said it was because he didn't want to be the only one who didn't feel the presence. So in a sense he felt left out. This is similar to what happens when people debate about certain arguments such as independence. They change their minds to agree with majority of the people to fit in.
If people are missing and a critical issue is decided then the missing persons will feel as if they had no say in the matter, and it will be very hard to get them to go along with what was decided.
When not all members are accounted for then the issue must not be important as it seems. On an issue is important as independance all people must be present and they should vote for what the people of their colonies are asking for. The topic should be debated until all members agree, unless there is a few stubborn people who dont even care to listen to the arguments and already have their mind set on what they want because they are too over-egoed.
It is highly unwise to take a vote when not everyone is present. In 1776, New Jersey was not present when the vote was taken to write the declaration of independence. That vote could have swayed the entire outcome of the revolution against England. Independence is mainly a once in a lifetime ordeal in which all must be present for both the historic vote and the outcome of the forsaken vote.
A great example from the movie: Caesar must leave the Congress due to his fatal conditions, and upon his leave for home he apoligizes to John Adams. Why? - all because of the "numbers game". He apoligizes because he leaves John Adams a "devided Delaware", in other words a Delware delegate for Independence and one against it. Had he been healthy and able to stay, he would have voted for independence making Delaware a colony totally for independence. In this instance, we can see how unfair the reality of the "numbers game" truly is; one man's absence (or attendence) may make all the difference in the world.
Depending on the topic (being independence), it is very critical that each person, who is contributing to whether the law passes or not, is present. If they cannot be present because of an illness or another serious matter, then the session should be postponed. Every person who is expected to participate should participate. A matter that they cannot prevent should not cause them to be shoved out of the circle. Especially when it comes down to a critical subject, every person needs to be able to join in order to get the full effect.
I agree that there are dissadvantages to the "numbers game" but I can also see the addvantages of being able to act quickly on time sensitive matters.
An argument? uhh, well, something to stress is that the "numbers game" is unfair. Proper representation isn't really proper when all who should be present to represent others can NOT be there to fulfill their duty; bad things happen that hinder people and can't be helped! The "numbers game" may even be open to sabotage. It's kind of a stretch, but if someone's mysteriously sick/poisoned or killed or...something, they can't attend, and a replacement may be very different from the first person/not come up in time.
I would be absolutely beside myself if my swing vote was not present for a ny reason, if you are ill then send a person in your stead. It is truly imperative that someone be there.
people are constantly switching tacts and never sticking to a resolution for long enough, unless they are the ones who drempt it up in the first place. as a reasult you can never rely on someone to back you unless they had a hand in creating the resolution you are supporting. this just reinforces that people cannot be trusted and that people are dishonest and this creates harsh feelings between the new states of the new nation that above all must stick together, to defeat the seemingly common enemy.
This "numbers game" is not fair to all members of the congress. Not all delegates could play this game because then there could be days when the congress room was empty, but the game doesn't have rules so some get to play and others don't. It'd be like if most people skipped class every day except for the one pre-announced day when the teacher took attendance. Those who didn't go to class every day didn't have to be bothered with the bordom of sitting in class, but when attendance was taken, and they needed to be in class, they were there and got the credit just like those who went to class each day. And it would make the situation even less fair if on attendance day (when everyone was present) the class voted on what book they would read and the majority voted on "The Life Cycle of a Fruit Flay", but the minority of people, who would be the ones reading in class each day preferred "A History of Pirate Names". Even though the people who actually showed up to calss didn't want the fruit fly book, the general majority, made up mostly of those who didn't come to class, twarted them.
the "numbers game" is just another variable in the political science equation. to think that everyone will be present, that everyone will be a clean vote, and that nothing will go wrong is fairly idealistic. the "numbers game" may not be fair, nut sometimes it is inevitable, other, it is a political ploy. either way, it is only a small flaw in democracy(which isn't perfect). to be fair, either side can work this into a victory or gain so sometimes it is fair when all sides can use it.
i agree with Black lizzy again on this one. Actually i seem to agree with you on alot lizzy lol. The numbers game just sucks to be honest. There is always an exception like pink pointed out, family, illness, etc. Its certainly not fair to vote without everyone present, yet if someone just did not feel like showing up, that is their decision to give up their vote. Emergencies are another story. Their vote has not been willingly thrown away, they just aren't able to make an appearance.
Post a Comment