I had a flash of understanding this morning..

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Maybe its old, I am quite sure that it is - because its so obvious.

It is so obvious, that maybe most people overlooked it.

First: Every person (if enabled to do so, like in a democracy) votes by following their "drive" - either emotionally or rational.

Here is my thought:
If you take the "emotional-voting" population, unregarding it's size, is divided mainly in two (2) groups: The Frightened and the Angry, concerning their view on their leaders, foreign and local politics.

The Frightened will react to their angst by voting for people who promise to protect them. They vote for conservatives.
The Angry are willing to react to their fury by voting for people who promise to change the existing politics. They vote for (lets call it
left-wing parties.

The Rationalists, those are people voting by pure rational thoughts like "that party will give me more of my tax-money back!" - they are by far a smaller number in the population. Most people are in fact emotional voters.



And this is it.

Look at any news: Is it purposely frightening you? Is it designed to anger you? Taking the above statements, you will clearly see which party is trying to steer you now.

Now, you could say "Hey, Obama, I'm really mad about that guy! I want a change!" - which sounds like an Angry point of view, therefore more likely leftist. In reality, you were not MAD about Obama, you were scared about the way you had to live thanks to his decisions. Why should you be mad about a single man?

The true Angry are really angry about stupid decisions up above, morons leading the country, and so on. They are not afraid. They would not vote for G.W.Bush, for instance, if he could run against Obama again, even if they are unsatisfied with Obamas work.


Okay, one last thought: There are other emotions which are openly distributed, like Hate.

Haters are the extremists, on both side of the spectrum. They are about equal in number, believe it or not. Maybe one side is a little louder than the other.

Ridiculouses, those are unwilling to vote, as no leader would ever reach a niveau compared to their own (which is of course beyond ridiculousness).

"Meh"-ists, those are completely unwilling to even think about voting.

And several other points of view, as you can see for yourself - but everyone of them ain't a vote-decider, either by not voting at all or by being only a very small number of voters.




posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
while i personally think there is a time when voting is useful (i would vote for Ron Paul in the coming election), but in reality you are voting to have someone else represent your opinion and you just have to hope he/she actually does. i don't feel this is the case at most times. voting is the most ineffective method to fight for change.








new topics
 
0

log in

join