|
|
|
ejdalise
Skeptic Friend
USA
50 Posts |
 Posted - 11/21/2007 : 22:58:00 [Permalink]
|
Assume for a moment we did have a "smart" electorate . . . where are the good candidates?
Perhaps the problem is not so much that American voters are not smart, but that the quality of candidates have pushed, or rather dragged down, the electorate to its current level.
That said, the electorate has been remarkably efficient at adjusting so as to keep the country pretty much going along following a middle of the road, reasonably moderate tack. Perhaps this is on the verge of changing, as divisive (and often artificial) issues have served to draw many voters to either the far left or right. And of course, the danger there is that the candidates will chase after them.
I hold out hope that what we are seeing is a few strident left and right extremists loudly proclaiming this or that view, but that the reality is a fairly centrist, fairly quiet, and not easily swayed, large group of voters. But like I said . . . they have progressively poorer batches of candidates to choose from with each successive election. |
--- Disperser ---
Winning enemies and aggravating friends since 1953 |
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2007 : 17:03:48 [Permalink]
|
ej.....
You've got a point. I think the problem is that no one of any quality wants the job. You have to lie, cheat, and steal to qualify and to serve, there is unbelievable public abuse, the money's good, but there are far easier ways to make a few million.
You have to make a deal with the devil - corporate America - to succeed in campaigning, or as President. Anybody with the brains, chutzpa, and moxie to be a good leader would far rather be a kingmaker - all the perks and more, and none of the downside of the public figure.
It takes a true power freak, one who needs to wield great power for its own sake, to be a successful candidate. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2007 : 09:22:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Good question. In too many cases, I think, the answer is a resounding 'No!'.
|
This is a question fundamental to the concept of democracy itself. It is the doubt that led the founders to create the Electoral College -- a CYA just in case your 'resounding no' is true for the majority of voters. But alas the Electoral College concept failed the Nation when the idiot American electorate gave us 4 more years of George-fucking-idiot-Bush.
So where was I going with this again? Oh yeah, is democracy a good idea? Is a democractic repubic even a good idea? Methinks GW and his Neo-Con idealists are rethinking the whole concept vis a vis the middle-east at least. Look how they treated Hamas when they were honestly elected by the Palestinians...
Here in the US it's a non-issue since they've gotten really good at manipulating the voting pubilic. And when that fails, there's only 2 candidates for every election anyway and they're not very far apart on the money issues, so wtf?
For me, the answer is a democratic republic can be a good idea, but there has to be reasonable standards and rules enforced around electioneering. Some accountability would be nice too. Today in the US, we've got some problems around that. Regarding what they did to Hamas, I think they should have given Hamas a chance to behave well. Stick to your ideals. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Are Americans smart enough to vote?
