What if most of the people voting are not voting for the right reasons? Is that necessarily a good thing for our voting system? Can our "beloved" democratic government be questioned in terms of its effectiveness when choosing a leader? Whenever I ask people around me why they vote for someone, whether its Clinton, Romney or even Ron Paul. The answers are always short, and its obvious their choices were barely analyzed, let alone questioned or debated to the least. They base it off religion, gender, looks, race, what party they are in etc... and rarely go through any deep analysis of the candidates themselves. This essentially means that its very easy to elect a corrupt moron as long as they are charismatic, white, Christian. Which has been the case for umm, the last 200+ years. The only solution to this would be to make the voting process more selective. A vote based on looks or religion to me is a not a vote that should count, people who make those decisions are nothing but parasites to our voting system. Despite the fact that this really goes against my libertarian, anti-government control views. I think it would be interesting to see an election with only intellectuals voting. People who know about our constitution well, its amendments, bill or rights. People who study each candidate regardless of what party, religion, race etc, they are affiliated with. See, just like when I am conducting a scientific experiment, and some of my data turns out to seem very "off" compared to most of the data I got. My usual reaction after some slight investigation would be to discard data that may affect the overall average drastically. That leads to a more accurate result for the experiment based on good data. I regard a bad voter as someone who should have his/her vote discarded, just like a bad piece of data that can drastically affect the overall result.