Not really.> How essential is for an individual to be knowledgeable in depth, in about ongoing politics?
> Is it fundamentally wrong to be apolitical?
> If you feel all the competing parties/fronts are worthless, is it right not to vote?
> Should the political awareness/ indulgence of an Individual be left for them to decide (Whether he/she should be apolitical or not) or is there more to it than just personal choice?
II believe it is important, being knowledgeable slightly above the usual and knowing more than just what you're spoon-fed in form of ads and posters can change a lot and help you to make a better, more concrete and confident judgement.
Campaign ads and promises are almost always lies, In my country and I believe in many others politicians show ads and promises for campaigns yet when they get elected they 9 times out of 10 go back on their promises, disregard all responsibilities, both moral and lawful and do everything to enrich themselves at the expense of the state and the people.
People see these ads and believe them, electing politicians like these. Being more knowledgeable can either prevent this or reduce the chances of it happening. With the mentality of ''just look at ads and vote'' anyone with money,no matter how incompetent and irresponsible they may be can become elected, with extensive knowledge people can determine what is right and wrong with candidates better and make better votes.
Nowadays people just elect someone with more promises, adverts or a fancy personality more so than someone who is genuinely competent. Common sense does not seem to be so ''common'' among the people as a mass.
No, and I don't understand why do you suggest it is. It is sometimes seen as ignorant or weak when someone does not vote in certain cases but I found this to be extremely rare and for me it's perfectly fine if someone doesn't have an opinion or simply does not care about politics. This comes with ''don't vote, don't complain'' mentioned above.
I think it is right not to vote. However sometimes choosing the '' least bad'' option might be preferable, a tactic politicians might use is to convince the people that all candidates are worthless so they don't vote, as such they potentially reduce their number of votes but also reduce competition as other candidates won't get votes either.
I believe that it is up to someone to decide if they personally care about politics or not, but in some cases like the aforementioned ''least bad'' case it might be beneficial for them to vote regardless of opinion.
If they decide to be political it is only natural that they should read up and understand politics and politicians they can vote for.
I see it this way: A truly political person is someone who truly understands politics and follows them and maybe even engages in them, someone who just looks at ads and watches the news is not truly political as they don't actually understand politics in depth in most cases. An equivalent to this would be to call someone who reads 1 book and watches 1 documentary without any research or concrete understanding of history a historian.
Agreed, if you want to enjoy the right to vote there should be the responsibility to be, to a certain minimum extent, informed about the issues at hand. Otherwise you are inflicting a decision based on ignorance on everybody (and in what other area of life is it considered a good thing to decide something without a reasonable degree of information?)If you intend to vote, you should have some in-depth knowledge of the issues on which you are voting, rather than believing what the politicians tell you.
Not essential IMO ..... for the immediate individual future. Fairly essential for a good representational vote , yet a lot of that can be canceled out by suspect arrangements and groupings of the voters ( eg, 'gerrymander' ) . Then again, since democracy doesnt really work anyway , maybe its not so good to have all those people deciding . But then again , again, the most ignorant are likely to want to express their opionion and want to vote .> How essential is for an individual to be knowledgeable in depth, in about ongoing politics?
No . There are large communities around the world that work on a democratic voting and electing process that are apolitical .> Is it fundamentally wrong to be apolitical?
"Right" ? ... depends on the law. Here it is illegal not to vote . Should it be that way ? Well you can do a donk if you like ;> If you feel all the competing parties/fronts are worthless, is it right not to vote?
I am mostly a libertarian so I suppose it should be left to the individual . But overall, its a bit like the legal system ; the type of system REALLY sucks ... but we cant think up a better way of doing it . Unless we count the 'best' system ; benevolent dictatorship ... but that's a gamble !> Should the political awareness/ indulgence of an Individual be left for them to decide (Whether he/she should be apolitical or not) or is there more to it than just personal choice?
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|Okay let's do this. Julius Caesar v. Alexander the Great??||General History|
|Pre-1990 Israel: is it okay to say that it was the most liberating and humane nation-state in the Middle East?||Middle Eastern History|
|Would it be okay to label Eleanor Of Aquitaine the mother of the Plantagenets?||General History|
|Okay, so I was listening to a song by Horrible Histories||European History|
|Similar History Discussions|
|Okay let's do this. Julius Caesar v. Alexander the Great??|
|Pre-1990 Israel: is it okay to say that it was the most liberating and humane nation-state in the Middle East?|
|Would it be okay to label Eleanor Of Aquitaine the mother of the Plantagenets?|
|Okay, so I was listening to a song by Horrible Histories|