the question 'what sways your vote ?' was recently posed in a local (australian) newspaper article. amongst the garden-variety replies invariably motivated by the individuals personal circumstances (or, in some cases, prejudices), i noticed this response:

(i would vote for a person who said) ... "my qualifications and abilities are not an issue, and i will put to vote any issue i have control in and follow the public consensus"

at first glance, that statement seems reasonable enough, if a little idealistic. then it sinks in. a candidate who made such an election promise would more than likely be voted in on a landslide based on the sheer strength of being willing to 'listen to the public' and 'do what they say'.

you see the problem now. regardless of the issue, the number of persons it concerns, or it's importance to the nation involved, the majority would rule. in every situation. a nation-wide 'show of hands' on every issue could easily result in a mis-informed or just plain afraid general public voting against a necessary action with their hearts, for example.

had australia no prime minister to send australians to iraq, the australian citizens would (as has been shown in numerous polls) have voted against the action. australians are unused to international conflict. we were scared. all we cared about was 'not making it worse'.

yet australian troops did go to iraq. and australians are screaming blue murder over it. yet, we're not considering what the outcome might have been had we gotten our way and left ourselves out here alone by taking a stance we have no capability of supporting or defending.

allowing any population to decide anything solely based on numbers would also be a disaster for the minority issues that a lot of people consider to be 'unimportant', not to mention allowing racism, sexism, white supremacy and any other nasty you can imagine that a huge waspy mob can think of.

and some that you can't. half of the world is young. do you really want justin timberlake as a president ?