The optimal solution is not always the popular solution. In fact, oftentimes, the only way to get a consensus is to cater to the lowest common denominator. Knowledge does not progress this way. In such situations, there wouldn’t be Galileos or Einsteins whose insights contradict common beliefs.

And what’s wrong with engineering positions to fit the popular sentiment?

He needs his ****ing Google clicks.

See you at Starbucks

Are you NUTS man?

Not going to MLQ3′s blog is like Not going to Starbucks!

See you at Starbucks

I really don’t go to MLQ3′s blog. It is a waste of time.

Good one Jet.

This is a project of __________ (the politician’s name). Thank you for your cooperation.”

I hate seeing reminders like these on billboards! It’s as if they are using their own money for the paving of the roads. The thing is, the dumb voters fall for it.

Changing to a Federal system is a long shot but I hope will occur one day.

@jet

Yeah. It’s all right there in the current constitution – the state should be protecting the interest of everyone, even those who are not yet born.

Our current system will only work when majority of the population is sufficiently educated. And the state should be ensuring the education of the population as well. Parang chicken and egg na ito ah…haha

Maybe so. Discovering that people are questioning his once-admirable objectivity might encourage him to take a step back and configure his message a little more carefully. Or it might reveal him for having become just another bandwagon media personality. It’s up to him, I suppose.

@ jethernandez, that’s right. Whatever the “official” system is, feudalism will remain the system in practice. Democracy and The Vote are actually highly-empowering systems. Trouble is, the people who people like Abe Margallo keep insisting hold the “power” are too dumb to wield it wisely. Instead of evaluating among themselves what best suits their interests (on the basis of what a politicians says he will do) and holding their politicians to their word, they instead go about behaving in that usual dumb way that makes them easy pickin’s for the influence machinery of politicians.

@ BenK, I’m willing to give MLQ3 the benefit of the doubt. I agree that he seems to have lost the plot as far as blogging is concerned and merely sways to the beat of public opinion (or at least that of his readership), but perhaps he is not conscious of what he has become. Perhaps he can be receptive to wake up calls and I’ve actually seen him in the past take on board new ideas even if they may run counter to his. Trouble with Establishment Bloggers is that they form too many personal relationships and latch on to party affiliations that blinker them and compromise their writing integrity.

Btw, this guy “Jose Rizal II” already made a lengthy response/challenge to MLQ3′s thesis. Check it out here (right below my original comment that was the basis for this blog).

I have heard an opinion that since squatters comprise a good bit of the “dumb” vote, de-powering their votes or at least reducing their vote’s power is part of the solution. The switch to the parliamentary system, or at least a system where the leader cannot be nationally elected, can do this. Anyway, everyone’s vote is weakened because they can’t elect the head of state; it’s parliament that does. Some may accuse me of being racist, but then again, urban poor who insist on living on land that belongs to someone else and producing criminal elements who are sometimes their main source of income, would you like to give them the majority power in the country?

This is an impressive analysis; thanks for sharing it.

If these clowns really thought about it, a Parliamentary system with its party dynamics actually works pretty well toward helping someone maintain local authority. The priority for political parties in a parliamentary system is to seek a majority in the legislature that will allow them to gain the executive, either outright or through a coalition. Local bigshots who can deliver the votes in the individual districts will be cultivated and supported, and have the opportunity to bargain their value into bigger, national positions for themselves. J.P. Enrile, for example, could exchange delivering all the districts in Cagayan for a Ministry chair, or for appointments of his chosen people to regional or provincial government posts.

The reason they would resist this kind of scenario is that it’s too risky; it’s an all-or-nothing proposition. Under the current system, or even a federalist modification of it, being associated with the losing side on a national scale need not necessarily damage their local influence. In the US for example, there are firmly Republican states where the party, even though it is a clear minority in the national government, pretty much runs things as they wish at the lower levels. A parliamentary system is much more centralized; the power is concentrated in who represents the local districts, and the importance of offices such as provincial governorships is much less. There may not even be elections for governors’ seats — in a traditional parliamentary system, there wouldn’t be — because these are not executive roles, but administrative ones. So for the Enriles and Singsons and Marcos of the country, they either deliver in a parliamentary system, or they’re out on their ear. No wonder why they wouldn’t want to screw with the way things are now.