I say restrict candidates to being boring lawyers and farmers. If that doesn't work, we'll restrict it to boring lawyers and farmers from Virginia. With the exception of Wilson, that served us pretty well.
LOL - You'd think there should be some rules - or at least standards governing this sort of thing. It shouldn't just be money or clever advisers or Facebook that can gain you the Presidency. Could there be some kind of test or maybe a 6 month probationary period *before* you had access to the launch codes...???
It's an eternal truism that we get the government we deserve because we either vote the idiots in or tolerate the un-voted ones without doing anything about it. Governments (or 'Leaders') exist with our tolerance. Once that goes so does the government.
Well, we used to have each state's leading men gather as an electoral college and put a few names of good men forward, then vote. Frankly, I suspect that mass democracy should be limited to local areas (counties, cities, perhaps states) where people's votes have a direct influence. How do you like the UK's system of the party in majority choosing a PM? Do you wish you could vote for PMs directly?
The PM is the Leader of the winning Party. It wouldn't make much sense to have him/her picked by the people rather than the party in question. For example if the Tories won I certainly wouldn't vote for a Tory PM and it wouldn't make any sense at all having a Tory PM and a Labour government or vice versa.
Technically in a General Election we vote for the candidate in our particular area. What most people do (I suspect) is vote for the candidate of their party no matter who that is - in the main anyway - and when people vote for a party they are often voting for that parties Leader so, apparently, quite a few students voted Labour in the last election because they liked Corbyn rather than (necessarily) the Labour candidate standing in their local constituency.
6 comments:
I say restrict candidates to being boring lawyers and farmers. If that doesn't work, we'll restrict it to boring lawyers and farmers from Virginia. With the exception of Wilson, that served us pretty well.
LOL - You'd think there should be some rules - or at least standards governing this sort of thing. It shouldn't just be money or clever advisers or Facebook that can gain you the Presidency. Could there be some kind of test or maybe a 6 month probationary period *before* you had access to the launch codes...???
after all, democracy was just a try-out of sorts... to see if it would work... the answer is pretty obvious by now...
It's an eternal truism that we get the government we deserve because we either vote the idiots in or tolerate the un-voted ones without doing anything about it. Governments (or 'Leaders') exist with our tolerance. Once that goes so does the government.
Well, we used to have each state's leading men gather as an electoral college and put a few names of good men forward, then vote. Frankly, I suspect that mass democracy should be limited to local areas (counties, cities, perhaps states) where people's votes have a direct influence. How do you like the UK's system of the party in majority choosing a PM? Do you wish you could vote for PMs directly?
The PM is the Leader of the winning Party. It wouldn't make much sense to have him/her picked by the people rather than the party in question. For example if the Tories won I certainly wouldn't vote for a Tory PM and it wouldn't make any sense at all having a Tory PM and a Labour government or vice versa.
Technically in a General Election we vote for the candidate in our particular area. What most people do (I suspect) is vote for the candidate of their party no matter who that is - in the main anyway - and when people vote for a party they are often voting for that parties Leader so, apparently, quite a few students voted Labour in the last election because they liked Corbyn rather than (necessarily) the Labour candidate standing in their local constituency.
Post a Comment