Alfred Hu asked in USMA 20269: >Joe, >Could this explain why Canada and other Commonwealth countries went smoothly >to metrics in the 1970's while the USA did not? I think so. What do you >think? >alfred
I think it does. I do not know of any country that has gone metric after a referendum. The general public, which does not make much use of measuring, is against changing to a new system that uses quite unfamiliar numbers, and that must be more difficult than the system they grew up with. The governments of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada simply decided that going metric was in the long-term best interests of the country, and then followed programs that were as swift and painless as possible. The Metric Section of the (Australian) Deppartment of Science and Technology reported in July 1982: "While the decision to go metric was well founded, it was thought that the reasons would be difficult to explain to non-technical people and attempts to do so could lead to unnecessary emotional argument and polarisation of attitudes. This was the basis on which the board decided to maintain a low key, low publicity public image and to concentrate on public education by involvement in day to day transactions in metric units rather than by more formal methods." >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 12:04 PM >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:20269] Re: Idaho > > >Jim Elwell wrote in USMA 20264: > >>However, the last paragraph of Louis' post brings up a very important >>point: since when is a government supposed to impose things that are not >>supported by the population, and how is that any different than tyranny? >> >>Such statements make me want to equate liberal = tyrannical. > > >It is important to distinguish between two conceptions of democracy. A >representative votes for what he perceives to be the wishes of his >constituents. The US constitution, with its division of powers between the >executive and the legislative branches, favors this concept. > >The British tradition does not have this division. Members of Parliament >are expected to vote for what they perceive to be in the best interests of >the country and their constituents. They are delegates and not >rpresentatives. > >Joseph B.Reid Joseph B.Reid 17 Glebe Road West Toronto M5P 1C8 Tel. 416 486-6071
