Quote:
Quote by: Technosoul  You have sort of answered your own question, if no
one voted then democracy would fail and the Supreme Court
would have to appoint someone like they did when they
could not count everyone's vote.
It has become more of being an emotional expression of
some sort, like shouting in a crowd of sceaming teenagers
over some super star rock singer. |
If no one voted it could still be considered democratic. Voting is only one possible expression of democratic tendencies, and it's largely methodical anyway.
As Henry David Thoreau (who I personally think was more enlightened than the bulk of humanity) put it:
All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. Its obligation, therefore, never exceeds that of expediency. Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote. Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 1
Grandpa h.