Why arent the smartest people running our countries?

[Mr_Moore]

In Sweden every political debate that takes place in the government is broadcasted live so that everyone can follow the discussions.
First someone starts of the with his opinions regarding the topic of the day and then debate ensues.
The debate that follows is for the most part of the time completly useless. People are basically quoting what they had earlier stated and are unable to properly discuss outside of that.
That is even more true for the socialist politicians.
Some of them are completly retarded and i would not hire them to clean my apartment and yet they are a part of those who run this country.
I am wandering of here but what i want to say is that information is often twisted and misinterpreted and debates are often completly useless and i assume that many people are often having difficulties following it.
Intelligent debate is often impossible to find.
I assume that many politicians are of course doing this on purpose and then there are those who are simply retarded and you wonder how on earth they got to that position of power.
I think there should be better ways of presenting information. I would like to see the debates based on facts that are properly presented every single time. I would like to see independent intelligent judges to maintain the debates and step in when some one is completly avoiding questions and saying retarded things.
I hate it when people are willingly twisting the truth and avoiding questions, actually i despise them and think they should be sent to jail.
So as you probably understand i found it almost unbearable to watch the debate and ask my self how this is possible?
The games and twisting of truths and questionable debates at the highest level of politics? How is it possible to have retards running our countries?
Our former minster of economics failed mathematics in high school and did not have a university degree.
That makes you sleep well at night.
[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I would like politics to be treated like an exact science.

[Mr_Moore]

oh, this should perhaps be in politics.

[scorcher863]

simple yet brilliant

[tame_deuces]

Because elitism is the worst governing policy a society can have.

If you want to improve on politics, then join it and work to make it better, it is your right and if you stretch it far it can be even said to be a duty. Believe it or not, most people think they can't make a difference - but they can.

[Siegmund]

Some people are too smart to want to spend their whole lives arguing with people, when they could be doing research, or saving lives, or making money, or whatever.

It's enough of a tragedy when a fine professor becomes a dean or provost and doesn't have time to teach anymore.

[Mr_Moore]

[ QUOTE ]

Because elitism is the worst governing policy a society can have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you say this? What would you replace it with?

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because elitism is the worst governing policy a society can have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you say this? What would you replace it with?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nono, you understand me. Elitism is what you get if you attempt to let the 'enlightened few' rule, or you pick your political leaders from an elite - sometimes called meritocracy. Iow. not traditional democracy.

It usually just devolves into pretty looking tyrannies - hypocrisy of the highest degree.

Singapore is probably the best modern example of such a society.

Elitism is an inherent danger of democratic principles, and any democracy can slide towards it if it starts picking it leaders from a single pool of people - as such you can probably call it the ultimate enemy of democracy; Invisible, seemingly justified and very, very corrupt.

[MiloMinderbinder]

[ QUOTE ]
... or you pick your political leaders from an elite - sometimes called meritocracy. Iow. not traditional democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because in traditional democracy we don't pick our leaders based on their merit, of course. Those who rise to the top based on their true merit (i.e., meritocracy) are anathema to both the traditional power holders and the masses. Which is one more reason why governments are usually the suck.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... or you pick your political leaders from an elite - sometimes called meritocracy. Iow. not traditional democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because in traditional democracy we don't pick our leaders based on their merit, of course. Those who rise to the top based on their true merit (i.e., meritocracy) are anathema to both the traditional power holders and the masses. Which is one more reason why governments are usually the suck.

[/ 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.

[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.