Path: utzoo!lsuc!nrcaer!cognos!dgbt!gandalf!alayne
From: alayne@gandalf.UUCP (Alayne McGregor)
Newsgroups: ont.general
Subject: Re: Highway Driving Rules
Summary: instant voting is a questionable idea
Message-ID: <2477@gandalf.UUCP>
Date: 2 May 89 19:12:57 GMT
References: <8904061731.AA21685@ellesmere.csri.toronto.edu> <400@hcr.UUCP> <1673@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca>
Distribution: ont
Lines: 53

In article <1673@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca>, kevin@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Wallace B. Wallace) writes:
> But, and it's a big but, people are generally lazy and will not go to any
> extra effort to express an opinion.  So in a situation related to the
> failings of our government system, the vocal minority might harangue their
> MP's into voting for something that the majority really does not want, but
> is unwilling to 'go out on a limb' to support.  This is the scary part to
> me.  'The squeaky wheel gets the grease' is not a valid form of government,
> at least in my mind.
> 
> What we need is instant voting capability, or at least a way for the 'lazy'
> person to voice their opinion.  (I've long since realized the futility of
> trying to get these people into action.  They will do something about it,
> but this usually consists of them reading the paper, shaking their heads
> and saying 'someone ought to do something about that.)  Maybe the MP on the
> net is a really good idea after all :-)  How about can.gov.write_your_mp ?
> 
> --- Kevin Picott
>       NTT Systems Inc.

To me, instant voting is synonymous with instant thinking -- in other words,
voting without considering all the arguments around a question and all the
results of your vote. There is a good reason why governments listen to pressure
groups -- they *know* what they're talking about. (This can produce good or
bad results, depending on whether the results the pressure groups push for
are in the general interest, but the results of instant polls produced
without proper discussion can only be worse.)

I am a member of a local cyclists' group that pressures city and regional
politicians for better cycling facilities (wider lanes, better parking,
proper sewer grates), and education for motorists and cyclists so they
can share the road. I do not expect someone who drives everywhere to
understand the problems I face as a commuting cyclist (although I will
agree with them that cyclists shouldn't go through red lights).

As a lobbyist, I understand the problems of my constituency and can
communicate them to policians in a way that can ensure cyclists  have an
easier time, without hurting others. I can educate a small group of
politicians about this. It's a lot more difficult to educate the
entire populace, although we do try.

Furthermore, most people don't care about the tiny details that do make
a difference to certain groups (like wider right lanes on streets). Why
should they be bothered by every change?

Certainly, people should be involved if they're interested in an issue.
But an uninterested person produces a worthless (to me) vote. Why bother?

Alayne McGregor
...!scs!gandalf!alayne
...!dgbt!gandalf!alayne
...!nrcaer!gandalf!alayne

(These, of course, are my opinions only.)