Timeline for Why did the Capitol's highly civilized people never vote down the Hunger Games?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 3, 2014 at 14:42 | comment | added | jwenting | Being elected and being elected by general elections are two different things. The Pope is elected, by a congregation of Cardinals who themselves are not elected. The European Commission is elected, by themselves basically (the commission elects future members from among candidates submitted by the member countries). The high chamber of the Dutch parliament is elected, by the provincial governments, again not by general elections. The president of the USA is elected, not by the population but by the electoral college which may or may not follow the outcome of the general elections... | |
| Mar 3, 2014 at 14:23 | vote | accept | Elzee | ||
| Mar 3, 2014 at 3:05 | comment | added | AJMansfield | @RoyalCanadianBandit @Jules We all know about how president x of corporation y makes a million bajillion more dollars that we do, though, right?` | |
| Mar 1, 2014 at 20:04 | comment | added | Royal Canadian Bandit | @Jules: I don't buy that. Lots of Presidents are not democratically elected (the Chinese head of state for one). In fact (as the quote in Joshbirk's answer says) the books are vague as to whether Snow was elected. He may be a dictator, or the situation may be more like present-day Russia -- with elections, political parties, and a superficially free press, but ruthless control behind the scenes. We don't know what the political system is, so I don't think blaming the system is a complete answer to the original question. | |
| Mar 1, 2014 at 10:25 | comment | added | Jules | @corsiKa because the most commonly used definition is the one that's sense 4 in the OED: "The officer in whom the executive power is vested in a modern republic, the elected head of the government, having during his term of office some of the functions of a constitutional monarch in a monarchical state." Of course there are other meanings, but that's the most commonly understood one, and what most people will think of first in this context. | |
| Mar 1, 2014 at 5:24 | comment | added | corsiKa | Why would the term president fool anyone? He presides over Panem. There's nothing about president that implies that who you preside over had a say in it. | |
| Feb 28, 2014 at 16:27 | comment | added | joshbirk | @RoyalCanadianBandit I'm not sure we're accurately defining "limited" here. The Capitol is shown as a heavily monitored society ruled by an iron fist. The Games are a centerpiece to quelling revolution. I think people even someone speaking up against it in a crowded bar might get a "visit". And yes, I'm putting "tribute" and "one who disappeared" in the same camp. | |
| Feb 28, 2014 at 16:20 | comment | added | Royal Canadian Bandit | @joshbirk: Yes. My point is that the Capitol permits some limited freedom of expression, but we didn't see protests against the Hunger Games earlier on. (BTW, the Hunger Games are a highly ritualised event in which the whole point is that the tributes have not personally done anything to offend the Capitol; run-of-the mill "traitors" would simply be killed.) | |
| Feb 28, 2014 at 16:07 | comment | added | joshbirk | @RoyalCanadianBandit Because protest = rebel, which equals becoming a tribute. Or death/disappearance (ie Crane). The voting phrase is partially to keep it in the same grammar as the question, but the main point is that even The Capitol lives under brutal dictatorship. | |
| Feb 28, 2014 at 12:52 | comment | added | Elzee | Yeah, I think you are right in saying that people's votes don't count in Panem as Snow is more of a dictator than an elected President. | |
| Feb 28, 2014 at 10:36 | comment | added | Royal Canadian Bandit | It is unclear whether President Snow was elected, but that's almost beside the point. Even if people do have a vote, changing government policy is difficult. (Consider how long it took for public opinion to stop the Vietnam War.) The original question points out that the citizens of the Capitol have at least some freedom of expression, so why did no one bother to protest? As you say, part of the explanation is that they don't want to risk their lives of ease and comfort, but I don't think that's the whole story. | |
| Feb 27, 2014 at 16:34 | history | answered | joshbirk | CC BY-SA 3.0 |