Upon reflecting group communication and things that are going on in the world. the article about voter apathy caught my attention.
http://www.euronews.net/2009/06/02/voter-apathy-in-normandy/
Ok we all know a group consists of 3 or more people but it you think abstractly a nation of people is also considered a group(?)
The article basically states that 1/4 of a small group of people voted European Parliamentary Elections. This is also not uncommon in Singapore by the way.....("Bowling Online, Not Alone: Online Social Capital and Political Participation in Singapore" journal of computer mediated communication)
Anyway it brings up the issue of if one doesn't vote can one complain about a groups leader? Ie take for example pg 184 of our text book with the header of Taking on task and maintenance Roles. Could one say that governments that have voter apathy are focusing to much on maintenance and less on social dimension?
I believe that one should vote if it is compulsory or not. Then at least you have justifications to encourage or oppose your leaders actions. Yes groups can be dynamic and can solve but also create many problems. The key i believe is to make a stance on who you choose your leader to be.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Commenting on what you brought up of Task VS Maintenance Roles with regards to politicians, I feel it is a real issue. Politicians balance between making unfavourable but necessary decisions while constantly looking up the approval polls of their policies by the public. But sometimes, it is the unporpular policies that is needed to stir the country on the right course. I guess a politician will only be effective when they are able to perform the task dimension for the betterment of the country while still kepping their social demension in check.
ReplyDeletechoosing a leader is too difficult a task to assign to group members. that's what i feel. we never know whether the candidate is putting up a front to garner votes, or maybe, we don't even know if the policies the candidate wishes to implement are what we want at all.. in that aspect, the sg govt resolves this problem by telling us what we want. it may be unscrupulous but perhaps we are not capable of thinking for ourselves? and we might need expert thinkers to think for us.
ReplyDeletei disagree with your point that everyone should vote whether or not it is compulsory.
ReplyDeletesince it is not compulsory, people that supports neither sides or do not have any opposition towards anyone does have the choice not to vote. this does not mean that they are not contributing in a group, it is just a neutral stand and prefer to go along with the group's decision.
i have to say that even if one doesn't vote, he or she still definitely have the right to complain about the leader. this is what that suggests and lead improvements for a group.
i agree with you when u say... when you vote at least you have justifications to encourage or oppose your leaders actions. i guess it's up to the individual to vote or not but why not try to have a say when you're given a chance instead of complaining later about what the others have chosen. :p
ReplyDeletebtw, i found this interesting - http://www.harshadoak.com/2009/05/society/voter-apathy-or-election-commission-incompetence.html
i actually think that sometimes people do not vote because they do not know the right choices to make! we cant deny that candidates often stop at nothing to sway people onto their sides. those people are probably confused & do not know who is for real & who is putting on an act! this leads to them not making a choice yet when a leader who does not meet their expectations is chosen, they start to make noise & complain. therefore, i actually agree with u that everyone should vote. then everyone can stfu & not make a sound because they had a hand in swaying the votes that way. lol.
ReplyDeleteI think one aspect of voting is our subconscious need to belong to a part of a group or to a group of ideas which are represented by the person we are voting for or the political party we support. When people do not vote, they simply cannot be bothered about politics and the ideas that these groups represent. So you could say that there might be a relationship between voting and a sense of belonging to one's community/society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sylvia that if voting is not compulsory, then people have the right the decide if they should or should not vote. I do not feel this rids their chance of voicing out any unhappiness towards the government in the future. They might have taken a nuetral stand when the election took place, but it is only right to voice out their complaints if they know the elected party is going the completely wrong way right?
ReplyDeleteI agree with the notion that if you don't vote, you don't possess the licence to speak of your grievances, of what's wrong with your country or its governance. but what happens when doing so would definitely result in your public shaming and condemnation? for not playing a part as a susceptible automaton in the "grand design"?
ReplyDeleteI agree that if you do not vote, then you should not have the rights to complain your leader. If you are not voting, it is taken that you have stood neutral and since you are being neutral, what rights have you got to complain? Doesn't seem right, does it? Also, if you have the right not to vote, it means that everyone else has that right as well. That means voting has become meaningless. Sounds seriously ridiculous to me.
ReplyDelete