I don't remember how many times I've voted. Remember though that most of the times I went to just cancel my vote. I assume the apparent irresponsibility of this gesture, because I seem to be something very wrong with one of the so-called fundamental institutions of democracy. Inability to express my political opinions through the ballot, so my voice to count, it was flagrant. Than to be the sponsor of someone who I do not represent any interests, alegeam be considered regardless. But beyond its own idiosyncrasies, what is important is that the current electoral mechanisms are, unfortunately, contrary to the democratic spirit.
The classic argument for democracy is that it represents the less dangerous form of Government. Indeed, the experience of communism we look like a democratic system, even ineffective, is currently our only option. The spirit of freedom, expressed by their sacrifices during the Revolution, is the one that made possible the democracy in Romania. but the spectacle of deplorable policy scene subsequently offered shows us that we are only at the beginning of the road to a truly democratic society in which every citizen's voice counts equally in public space. Therefore, the spirit of freedom requires us now to revise the political participation of the institution in the context of democracy.
The problems of the present electoral system are majority tyranny (if some decide for all, against the desire of a minority) and the incompetence of the majority to wise decisions. The basic pillar of the liberal spirit is the point of reference in understanding the problem of tyranny of the majority: the freedom of an individual must be maximum, as long as it does not restrict the freedom of the same to someone else. Looking from this perspective, we can refer the matter to a fundamental difference between the two situations, at a superficial level, seem almost identical. The first is the present situation in the current electoral system, in which every citizen who says he thinks that would be the most appropriate//right of candidates (positive vote). The second situation is that where each citizen who says he thinks that would be most inappropriate//unequal between the candidates (negative vote). Will see that the first type of situation, which we sincerely, partisanship does not present any kind of internal mechanism to ensure compliance with the freedom of others. Such a system will legitimize the end result, regardless of whether the reasons of those voting involves violating other people's freedom or not. In other words, true legitimacy through democratic elections the classical returns to a tricky arithmetic that leaves us vulnerable in the face of tyranny of the majority. In contrast, a negative vote, every citizen will provide exactly the information that is relevant with respect to those who think that i would harm the values, so freedom. And aggregating votes will not be negative just as arithmetic larger number of negative votes gained a bigger violation of the rights of others.
To understand the issue of incompetency is important to clarify the Government's role in a democracy. That is, they are not citizens, but are leaders in their job. Using an analogy, all citizens of a country have an action (a vote) to a company (State) and to choose management team. The problem is that the interview (election campaign) promises everybody United with salt, but he chose not to do anything of the promise. So, the question is what can we do to stop choosing incompetent managers. Continuing the analogy, we can consider as politicians provides a service (governance) of citizens. The existence of markets more competitive for governance is a necessary condition for obtaining a high-quality service. And healty competition involves a dynamic market in which those ineffective disappear to let others more adept.
at this point one can specify the fundamental error of the current electoral system, which led to the formation of a political oligarchy interested almost entirely for the promotion of their own interests, to shelter the monopoly it holds. The error put emphasis solely on the positive vote is the one that allows genuine political formations to form power centers interested in getting the resources by achieving self-government. The dual strategy of these formations will consist in attracting organised groups by offering various benefits and in the practice of demagogiei towards the citizen. Also through the positive vote is impossible to direct elimination or removal of a candidate on the stage of politics, the only variant being an indirect and temporary removal option for a solution through compromise, for a less bad. Taking into account the psychological structure and type "tin star, so are anti-Dinamo", we can understand why the duo power-Opposition generally plays with the same actors, who alternate roles. Again, going from this political distribution dezarmanta stability involving a new opportunity and chances for perdanti, we can understand of political mediocrity.
Why did I have to win if we put emphasis (non-exclusive) on a negative vote? first of all, we could vote in the spirit of freedom, moving away from him on the stage of politics on those who infringe us values. For example, giving him a vote of censure for his V, we can share all those to whom the image of a country in which racial hatred would be at the rank of principle seems unacceptable. In addition, I have to vote on it, in order to protect us from this scary picture. Secondly, we could really become active citizens, could we create genuine civil society. A new date of a corrupt politician, demagogue, security or just incompetent i wouldn't have this time fatal. They would not have a second chance to steal on the backs of all the others. Thirdly, we pave the way those virtuosos who can govern without aversion to attract citizens. And, most importantly, we'll be a bit freer and more responsible.