Let's start with the obvious:

quote:

If one day you found out you've got cancer, you'd probably look for an oncologist. However, if you wanted to build a house, you wouldn't an oncologist: you'd hire an architect and an engineer.

That's because the oncologist knows more about tumours than your average doctor (he's a specialist). However, he doesn't know much about building houses (that's why you'd hire someone who knows about construction instead), unless, of course, the aforementioned oncologist happensed to be an architect/engineer too.

It works pretty much the same way everywhere else: a programmer knows more about computers than most veterinarians; an economist knows more about the economy than your average lawyer; and, naturally, even if the lawyer knows something about economy and the vet knows how to program, they're not exactly the best person for those functions (you wouldn't eat a soup with a fork, but rather with a spoon).

Now, why exactly do we have politicians in charge of virtually everything (e.g. presidents)? Sure, they all have assistants, but these politicians are not subordinated to them (in fact, it's the other way round). So, here comes question number one:

1. Why do we insist in this kind of centralisation when these specialist might do a better job if they had more independence?

The most worrying part is the fact that your average Joe can vote, even if he's completely clueless about politics as a whole:

2. How can, someone with little (or no) knowledge about economy vote for a politician that will be in charge of handling the national economy?

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

it's a little thing called leadership. all beaurocracies have their specialist whether they be lawyers, engineers, scientists, economist...lawyers when it comes down to putting them all together with whatever common goals attributed to each branch of the beaurocracy, they need leadership. thats who we elect and trust to put the appropriate team together to lead.

My gosh, imagine if it was only the president making the decisions. Anyways in the U.S. the specialists you refer to are called the Cabinet. The Cabinet is divided into departments:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Alabama
Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson New York
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Illinois
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Texas
Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne Idaho
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns Nebraska
Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez Michigan
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao Kentucky
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson Texas
Secretary of Transportation Maria Cino (acting) New York
Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman Massachusetts
Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt Utah
Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings Texas
Secretary of Veterans Affairs James Nicholson Colorado
Secretary of Homeland Security

and serves as a counselor to the president advising him on each issue.

1. The idea is not to choose one person to take care of all of the issues. The idea is to choose a person that can be trusted to make the right and diffcult decisions when the time comes based off the information the specialists give them.

2. The popular vote has a very small barring on the outcome of the election in our specific process. The Electorial College makes the final decision. They are supposed to base how they vote upon the overall outcome of popular vote of the district they represent.

Now, we could go back to only white males of the age of 21 or older that own property(since they were supposedly more educated) being allowed to vote. I just have a feeling that wouldn't go over very well.

This is the largest issue with a democracy though. There is no non-discriminatory way to get around it. Once you open the polls you have to allow everyone that qualifies to particiapate which typically comes down to whether or not you're legally considered an adult. It's not a perfect system, but it's not possible to have a perfect system since we're not perfect beings.

Don't forget about the system of checks and balances between the triumvirate...which George Bush has found a way of controlling, what with his conniving meddlesome fingers and his greasy dego hair.

Besides, I think politics is ultimately an every-man's profession at its roots. Some are just better at it than others.

quote:

POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

quote:

POLITICIAN, n. An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When we wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive.

quote:

PRESIDENT, n. The leading figure in a small group of men of whom -- and of whom only -- it is positively known that immense numbers of their countrymen did not want any of them for President.

quote:

Originally posted by stevieboy32808 My gosh, imagine if it was only the president making the decisions. Anyways in the U.S. the specialists you refer to are called the Cabinet. The Cabinet is divided into departments: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Alabama Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson New York Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Illinois Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Texas Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne Idaho Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns Nebraska Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez Michigan Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao Kentucky Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson Texas Secretary of Transportation Maria Cino (acting) New York Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman Massachusetts Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt Utah Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings Texas Secretary of Veterans Affairs James Nicholson Colorado Secretary of Homeland Security and serves as a counselor to the president advising him on each issue.

You forgot Barbara Smith, Secretary of the Secretaries. I think she's the one that answers the phone and gets the coffee.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo it's a little thing called leadership. all beaurocracies have their specialist whether they be lawyers, engineers, scientists, economist...lawyers when it comes down to putting them all together with whatever common goals attributed to each branch of the beaurocracy, they need leadership. thats who we elect and trust to put the appropriate team together to lead.

um, so you just happen to think the republicans always have the best leadership ability?? its more than that and we both know it.

2) ultimately, lots of people cant really know the best person/party to elect. thats why campaigns are so simplistic in what they say.

you cant vote for someone that doesnt stand for election- so if youre clueless and in quasi agreement with their policies, or if youre educated and in agreement with their policies, whats the difference? that politican might very well have everything all wrong, but if they dont know it, how can you expect the citizenry of joe averages to?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lira 1. Why do we insist in this kind of centralisation when these specialist might do a better job if they had more independence? The most worrying part is the fact that your average Joe can vote, even if he's completely clueless about politics as a whole: 2. How can, someone with little (or no) knowledge about economy vote for a politician that will be in charge of handling the national economy?

Removing the right to vote from the "non educated" creates an elitist society.

IMHO we insist on centralisation for two reasons.
Efficency.
Governments are elected with a mandate. Without *reasonable* power to oversea their policy what was the point of the election in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN um, so you just happen to think the republicans always have the best leadership ability?? its more than that and we both know it. 2) ultimately, lots of people cant really know the best person/party to elect. thats why campaigns are so simplistic in what they say. you cant vote for someone that doesnt stand for election- so if youre clueless and in quasi agreement with their policies, or if youre educated and in agreement with their policies, whats the difference? that politican might very well have everything all wrong, but if they dont know it, how can you expect the citizenry of joe averages to?

wait a second, i was about as non-partisaned as i could be with my answer to his question. if i was guilty of anything it was that i may have been too simplistic.

...but since you bring it up. yes, the Republicans have the best leadership bar none.