Why arent the smartest people running our countries?

[moorobot]

"Why don't people vote for smart people" or in PR systems "Parties that pick smart representatives?" Perhaps they aren't being given the option to vote for the somebody that is smart that will implement policy they agree with. There is probably a demand and supply problem here as others have pointed out: a lot of intelligent people don't want to be politicians, and a lot of voters don't want to vote for smart people; in political science two primary concepts about voting behavior are taught at the introductory level: Sociological voting, under which people tend to vote for people who are "just like them" in certain demographics e.g. in intelligence, or manner of speech, or ethnicity; and another concept (the general name of which escapes me) that people vote for those who want to implement policy they agree with. These two motivations behind selecting a candidate can be in tension.

However, this still overlooks a presupposition: that political officials are "running our countries". Instead, it might be argued that somebody else that works with the party (or even that doesn't) has a large influence on the viewpoints and actions of elected officials, and/or that appointed people tend to make many if not most of the decisions.

[moorobot]

I have a question for you, since you tend to use the socialist party in your examples. In the U.S. studies have shown that intelligence is associated with leftism positively; that is, as intelligence goes up, then, other things being equal, a person is further to the left. This has been shown by accounting for the intervening variable of income (obviously higher relative income tends to lead people to vote for right wing parties, as this tends to be in there immediate narrow economic interest; once we control for income the trend I outlined above is correct).

Furthermore, John Stuart Mill, who was not just a philosopher but an elected official, infamously called the conservative party "the stupid party" in a public diatribe, by which he meant "stupid people are generally conservative".

My question for you, then, is do you think that in Sweden 2007 a trend opposite of the one that is at work in the U.S. 2007 and (apparently) was at work in the UK in the middle of the 19th century is at work?

[Jamougha]

Because they're too smart to get into politics.

[Suwalski]

I have a theory, which i have no really evidence to backup, but i (want to) believe, that behind the politicians there is an army of highly educated public servants, who actually knows what their doing and have investegated the matter that much, that whatever the politicians may decide, their decisions won't ruin the country due to the extremly competent public servants.

Some might claim that those public servants will have a rightwinged agender, because they are in general placed "high" in society and will benefit on supressing the middle/lower class. On the other hand, they're also a part of our goverment, and are therefor interested in not undermining in a more social socity(where alot of people will be hired by the goverment).

Anyways this a big subject, and there's alot of discussions about who REALLY controls the country. For instance other claim that it is the big coperations who run everything (god damn hippies)

But yes, i too despise people who lie and twist the truth. I think it was sokrates who said something like It's a bigger crime to tell a lie than to kill a man.

Anyways about the "real" evidence, people in general often choose there evidence from their political point of view.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
In the U.S. studies have shown that intelligence is associated with leftism positively; that is, as intelligence goes up, then, other things being equal, a person is further to the left.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you had used the word "libertarian" instead of "left", this would be correct. As it is worded though... cite please!

[ QUOTE ]
This has been shown by accounting for the intervening variable of income (obviously higher relative income tends to lead people to vote for right wing parties, as this tends to be in there immediate narrow economic interest; once we control for income the trend I outlined above is correct).

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I see. More intelligent people are more likely to be further left, but only if you fix the statistics in your favor. That makes more sense then.

[Metric]

The smartest are typically more interested in other things.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes it always sounds like a sweet deal until you figure out it is ultimately only the people with merit who gets to say who has merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meritocracy is a system of a government or another organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities are given based on demonstrated ability (merit) and talent rather than by wealth (plutocracy), family connections (nepotism), class privilege, cronyism, popularity (as in democracy) or other historical determinants of social position and political power.

Since you are against using merit and talent as a measure, which of the other choices do you prefer: (a) wealth, (b) popularity, (c) social position, (d) political power, (e) family connections, (f) class privilege, or perhaps, (g) cronyism. Cronyism sounds like the bomb!

[/ QUOTE ]

Meritocracies always devolve into connections, class privelige and cronyism, esp family ties and stuff like that. So they actually never use real merit much for anything. It's cool, it is like monarchies in disguise so obviously if I'm king (I mean president, silly me) I'd prefer popularity on paper. Looks better for the UN.

To answer your question as to what I would really prefer - none of them. Obviously popular sovereignty is the best and all that, but a good system it does not make alone.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

In Sweden every political debate that takes place in the government is broadcasted live so that everyone can follow the discussions.

It is in the US, too. Check your cable listings for C-SPAN.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously popular sovereignty is the best

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Nobody could ever disagree with that.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously popular sovereignty is the best

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Nobody could ever disagree with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the alternatives were (a) wealth, (b) popularity, (c) social position, (d) political power, (e) family connections, (f) class privilege, or perhaps, (g) cronyism. So the quote you made there is def. out of context.

I'm sure there are those who prefer something else, but the question was what I preferred.