Why is it that we elect "public servants" and then blame them for doing the job badly? Is it because there are no honest and intelligent people available? If it is not possible for the public to elect the right people, then can it be that "democracy" is really not a satifactory system after all? Perhaps the public is wrong. It seems that Saddam Hussain did a better job of running Iraq than we have. Certainly, the human cost far exceeds what lives were lost during his regime.

Of course, the war with Iran came at a terrible cost to both countries, but we were the ones who encourage and then supported Hussain in THAT venture!

charles,

We supported both sides of that war at various times. There are three major reasons why Democracy isn't working in Iraq. One is that there's still a war there. The other one is that Bush instituted his own brand of free market capitalism there, which gave all the rebuilding money to corporations that took the money out of Iraq, as well as undercut the formation of a middle class. The third reason is that Iraq isn't used to Democracy, they don't have the conditions that support it, although they could.

There are many fine politicians and public servants in the states, but the money is corrupting. We need to vote in politicians that will place the interests of the people over their own, and legislate the money out of politics.

because the only douches that get to the higher echelons of government are power-hungry debate-club-champs who are willing to sell their soul (and for that matter, their beliefs) to fit right into the mainstream media. Yes I am talking to you, John Edwards, you sniveling piece of selling-out dog s**t... For that matter, you too Glover.

Anyone that's intelligent enough to run for office is smart enough not too! They know they'll just get wiped out by the guy with the better funding, connections, and demeanor, even if they don't have a platform to run on that doesn't involve an ad campaign that borders on..

"Mr. So-and-so likes to eat the flesh of little boys! I'm such-and-so and I approved this message."

To which So-and-so replies...

"Such-and-so likes to claim that I like to eat the flesh of little boys. Nothing could be farther from the truth, especially considering that Such-and-so likes to beat up puppies!" *show picture of a sad beagle puppy* "I'm So-and-so and I approved this message."

I know I'm over exagerating, but I'm kinda disgusted with what I see, and it might be why I'm starting to join the ranks of Americans who don't vote, because simply, I can't stand the system sometimes. I hope I see reason to change my mind soon, otherwise, only 25% of the public left to pick the next panel of douches to office...

Vote or Die.

That's why.

Remember those celebrities wearing tee shirts that said that?

ALL MEMBERS: PLEASE NOTE THAT "FREE THOUGHTS" IS NO LONGER AT THE TOP OF THE LIST. WE ARE TRYING TO STRESS THIS WEBSITE'S PURPOSE AS A FORUM FOR SCIENCE.

THREADS LIKE THIS ARE WELCOME, BUT PLEASE BE CAREFUL NOT TO LAUNCH ONE IN THE SCIENCE SUBFORUMS.

Moderator: I believe this should be moved to Politics or one of the other areas of general scholarship.

because the only douches that get to the higher echelons of government are power-hungry debate-club-champs who are willing to sell their soul (and for that matter, their beliefs) to fit right into the mainstream media. I know I'm over exagerating, but I'm kinda disgusted with what I see, and it might be why I'm starting to join the ranks of Americans who don't vote, because simply, I can't stand the system sometimes. I hope I see reason to change my mind soon, otherwise, only 25% of the public left to pick the next panel of douches to office.Politics is a popularity contest judged by laymen. So it's inevitable that the higher one ascends in the political hierarchy, the more one will have been selected for the desire and ability to win contests and achieve power, than for job talent.

Therein lies the fundamental flaw in large nations with large government structures. They have more levels to ascend, and so select more strongly for competitive skill over job talent.

There are modest-sized cities with governments run by engineers, social workers, teachers, doctors, parents, and other people whose daily lives bring them in contact with their constituents and whose background and interest are strong in their areas of governance. The reason is that in those cities a parent and/or engineer with no prior political experience can fill out the forms, collect a few hundred signatures, get her name on the ballot, and win against other candidates with similar qualifications.

But you can't get elected to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors without having first been on a city council or serving in some other lower-level position. Nobody knows who you are and having only "beloved teacher" or "successful plumber" on your resume won't lift you above hundreds of other similarly beloved and successful citizens in the eyes of an electorate measured in millions; you have to be recognized. You can't make it into the California State Assembly without having paid your dues in municipal government. Becoming the state's governor or one of its representatives in Congress requires even more paying of dues at the state level, perhaps the State Senate or a cabinet position. By the time you can win a national primary election and be nominated for President, you've won a dozen increasingly difficult popularity contests, so you're more likely to be a savvy competitor who abandoned his scruples fifteen years ago, than a wise and noble leader.

There are other ways of being recognized of course. California is the entertainment industry's Company Town, so we've put two actors in the Governor's Mansion. Reagan's political career is the true American Dream: holding only one elected public office before being admitted to the White House. Yet... he was a savvy politician after being president of the Screen Actors Guild; he already knew how to win popularity contests.

So if you want elections to stop being popularity contests, the first step is to scale back the size of government so there aren't so many levels. I suspect that may require scaling back the size of nations. Instead of watching Europe inexorably merge into one giant gridlocked bureaucracy, we should be breaking up the USA, China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc. Perhaps fifty million people is a good maximum size for a country. Perhaps fewer.