Re: [FT] UNSC (emotional rant)

Mark A. Siefert wrote:

> >	Not really I'm afraid.	As with all
> > "representative democracies" the
> > only people who are represented are those who A)
> > vote at all, and B)
> > actually voted for the winner of the election.  Now
> > granted, some of the
> > people who don't vote do so because they are
> > apathetic.	However, some do
> > not vote because they realize just what a sham the
> > system is.	As for group
> > "B", I vote in just about every election and I can
> > not say that I have
> > representation.  I vote for neither of my State's
> > senators (Herb Kohl and
> > Russ Feingold), nor my district's congressional
> > representive (Jerry
> > Kleczka).  I didn't vote for them because I do not
> > agree with their
> > politics, nor do I believe that they will represent
> > my interests.  Why
> > should they worry about keeping a vote they didn't
> > get in the first place?
> > Ultimately, I am not reprsentented.  So the question
> > before the house (no
> > pun intended) is why am I morally obligated to obey
> > the laws that Feingold,
> > Kohl, and Kleczka help enact?  Better yet, why
> > should I vote at all.
> >
> > Later,
> > Mark A. Siefert

I don't know much about the American system of government, but I can
tell
you that in the UK you don't totally lose your representation just
because
you voted for the loser. That's why they have debates in parliament. If
you
have an issue to raise, you can raise it with your local MP who will
then
raise it in parliament and something will, if it is a sensible and
justified
issue, be done about it. I think in the US the senate works in much the
same
way. Democratic government - with taxes and everything else - may not be
perfect, but it is the best solution. There is no better alternative -
unless you would like to suggest one?