Or at least that was the conclusion after reading Dan Hannan’s tale of a chat with a voter. (I suspect we get the governments we deserve as well.)
But it did make me think of some of the worst reasons for deciding who to vote for.
1. The candidate is local.
Yes, I can see that carpet-bagging career politicians are not ideal, and that a local candidate may have local knowledge, but there is no guarantee that a local MP will be any better than someone who has no connection with the area.
2. The candidate is one of us.
Evidence suggests that in US Democratic Party primaries in 2008, a lot of black people supported Barack Obama because of his skin colour, and a lot of women supported Hilary Clinton because of her sex. Not intelligent. I still remember hearing women who said that they voted Conservative in the 1979 General Election because Margaret Thatcher was a woman, and were then horrified by the policies of her government.
3. The candidate is a Christian.
(Not unrelated to the above.) Many Christians believe that a Christian will usually make a better MP that a non-Christian, and will basically vote in a way that reflects their own views. In reality, this is often not the case.
4. The candidate seems nice.
Or is a good family man. Or is young and good looking. Or has lots of charisma. Or comes over well on TV. Yes, otherwise intelligent people think like this.
5. The candidate is a good constituency MP.
The legislation that MPs pass in parliament is what will determine the kind of country we live in. Constituency work, in the end of the day, doesn’t really matter. But a lot of people haven’t realised this.
As Dan Hannan implies, there is one, and only one, intelligent way to decide how to vote - and that is according to political principles and policies of the candidate. It’s not always easy to find out, but some people don’t seem prepared to even try.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
3. The candidate is a Christian.
This always aggravates me. It hides the idea that becoming a Christian gives you some kind of super-enlightenment about worldly affairs. Really quite a bizarre notion.
While those reasons are not good in themselves, a couple may be okay to take into consideration if there were some good candidates and all else being equal.
Something I think worth taking into consideration, though you may think differently, is the moral character of the candidate. I tend to think that who they are will have an effect on how they vote whatever they claim.
But you are right about principle. Being a ruler means you need to have the right principles about the role of a leader. To think rightly about the role of the state and act on it is very important.
Policy is easier to find but perhaps less important. One can have good policy for the wrong reason and vice versa. Principles are more foundational.
Something I think worth taking into consideration, though you may think differently, is the moral character of the candidate. I tend to think that who they are will have an effect on how they vote whatever they claim.
I wouldn't disagree - but it is quite difficult to actually assess the moral character of a candidate. And some people who abide by the highest standards of morality in one area may be remarkably unprincipled in other areas.
Post a Comment