quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Saying we should have 'smart' representatives and a 'smart' electorate seems wishful idealism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Realistically, what would you change?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Another interesting sidenote about sports and intellectualism is that more people seem to get excited over college athletic programs than their academic performance.

Perhaps that's one of the roots of the problem?

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Okay, if it is your perception that things are working really well in this country, then obviously we are approaching this from very different perspectives.

quote:

Is this why the American electorate is so very happy at how the last decade has gone? Because everything is just great here?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

But then we're still left with the question as to what the qualifications should be for "leader."

I submit that regardless of what you think a leader's qualifications should be the only real thing that qualifies a leader is if anyone is following him or her.

quote:

quote:

But on the subject of ideas and ideology, that may go back to party and factional loyalty I mentioned upthread. If a person is ideologically aligned with either the Democratic or Republican parties, they might not care so much that this candidate or that candidate is "unqualified" (or even a bumbling fool), because they may be voting more for the party and their ideological platform than any individual candidate. They're also looking at the lesser of two evils. I think people might be more inclined to vote for the airhead who agrees with them over the genius who disagrees with them.

Firstly, the "bumbling fool" is tested by a campaign in a primary contest.

quote:


Secondly, it seems that you are starting to allow for the possibility that voting is not necessarily a rational activity. There are always emotional dimensions to the choices we make, aren't there?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Realistically, what would you change?

Good question, much more useful than going on about philosopher-kings.

Vocal groups in this country have a say disproportional to their size. As such I propose that those of us who consider education and intelligence to be essential attributes for our elected officials should raise awareness. That we should talk about this on the internet and in our communities. Maybe get a bumper sticker or wear a pin when you go vote. Here's a T-shirt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Anyone under about 55 knows very little that wasn't spoon fed to him by Granma (I think that's how the Cuban's version of Pravda is spelled) and the Castro Brothers' approved educational system.

Concerning things like the "gulf of tonkin incident","the bay of pigs incident" "the cuban missile crissis" who had the more accurate reporting granma or cbs,abc,nbc,washington post,new york times,la times?

Why don't you pull all the articles out of archives and give us a full report.

Were you not aware that the gulf of tonkin "event" never happened and that was the lever that took us fully into vietnam and 60,000 body bags?
Were you not aware that the bay of pigs was a cia opperation?
Were you not aware that it was kennedy and not kurschieve who blinked?
Were you not aware that because of that the u.s. has signed a treaty pleging to never invade cuba?
It was in granma but not the nyt,wp,lat or any mainstream u.s. newspaper or news program.

Tonkin happened, just not the way we said it did unfortunately.
The others Im aware of except Kennedy and Kruschev both blinked. They decided they wanted the human race to continue.
Bay of Pigs a CIA op? Is there anyone on the planet who does NOT know that?
As for the others, Im waiting for you to dig up the Granma archives. You're so sure they were totally truthful, show us.
Even though your post is a hijack, I want to see those links to Granma and the other sources crossreferenced and labelled.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Voter apathy also represents a type of anti-intellectualism. That Americans who don't even choose to vote sit back and criticize what goes on in the country is the ultimate statement about our "dumb" approach to politics. I see voter apathy as simply another facet of the same problem. And it all leads to continued bad leadership. When will the American populace wake up/grow up and understand what politics and leadership requires? Probably never, but I can still complain.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantboy47

It's very obvious that Americans are anti-intellectual, they elected Obama.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Voter apathy also represents a type of anti-intellectualism. That Americans who don't even choose to vote sit back and criticize what goes on in the country is the ultimate statement about our "dumb" approach to politics. I see voter apathy as simply another facet of the same problem. And it all leads to continued bad leadership. When will the American populace wake up/grow up and understand what politics and leadership requires? Probably never, but I can still complain.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Hell's bells! Politicians are us, to be sure - but they're 'us' with added power. Whatever happened to 'power corrupts'? Nup. I want politicians to have at least a little fear that we, the electorate, have some small say in whether they stay or go.

quote:

If there's any room for election reform in this country, it's in the primaries and the overall process of parties choosing their candidates. (I also think that presidential primaries should all be held on the same day for all states, some time in September before the election, so that there's only three months of electioneering.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Hell's bells! Politicians are us, to be sure - but they're 'us' with added power. Whatever happened to 'power corrupts'? Nup. I want politicians to have at least a little fear that we, the electorate, have some small say in whether they stay or go.

The UK is a different situation than the US as regards the buying and selling of representatives, so a different tradeoff. Still, as I explained, you'd still be getting party-accountability, even though there would be personal anonymity, which would matter a fair bit for the UK situation if I understand your model well enough. That said, I'll admit that it was probably a brainfart as-is.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

If there's any room for election reform in this country, it's in the primaries and the overall process of parties choosing their candidates. (I also think that presidential primaries should all be held on the same day for all states, some time in September before the election, so that there's only three months of electioneering.)

Zonie; the political parties are NGOs. They are private clubs. I don't think the states can tell them how to nominate their candidates.

quote:

This measure will allow all Arizonans, regardless of party affiliation, to vote in a single open primary for the candidates of their choice. The two candidates who receive the most votes in the primary will compete in the general election. There will be a level playing field for all voters and candidates, and the current system of taxpayer-funded partisan primaries will be abolished. This reform will promote open government and encourage the election of candidates who will work together for the good of the state.

quote:

Interestingly enough, there's a proposition on Arizona's ballot this year which proposes that the State do exactly that: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_%22Open_Government_Act%22_Initiative,_Proposition_121_(2012).

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Interestingly enough, there's a proposition on Arizona's ballot this year which proposes that the State do exactly that: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_%22Open_Government_Act%22_Initiative,_Proposition_121_(2012).

Verrrrrry interesting. Is there anything in the initiative to prevent the Parties from holding nominating conventions?

quote:

Proposition 121 provides that individuals may organize or join political parties and that political parties may elect party officers, support or oppose candidates and otherwise participate in all elections, if the party activity is not paid for or subsidized using public funds. All voters, candidates and political parties must be treated equally, regardless of party affiliation or lack of affiliation. When registering to vote, voters would be allowed to state any party preference in their own words and would not be limited to selecting from a list of recognized political parties or affiliations.

quote:


Assuming there is not since it would violate the right to Assemble, I would guess, what outcome would you expect when the Parties sued to have their candidates on the ballot?