NationStates Jolt Archive

If the majority of the voting public are as thick as two short planks then...Surely then the Governments are justified in behaving in the sort of irrational manner that will satisfy the intellectually challenged 'voting majority'- leaving the intelligent minority bewildered (and not moaning too loudly in case they get punched in the face by a staunch supporter of the Iraq war!). The thrust of this argument is that Governments must not behave rationally or they face the daunting economic prospect of losing POWER at the next election- provided that the original premise is true ie. the majority of adult voters are thick as pigshit!

eh? What are you trying to say about Bush?

Which is why I like Plato's model of government in the Republic, albeit a tad less interventionist. Rule by an intellectual elite as opposed to vote-mongers.

Dictatorship for the future! It worked up until about a measly three centuries ago, so it must have worked pretty well.

Anybody intellectual enough to have come to that conclusion by themselves should be given the right to vote. It can be the test you take beforehand.

That's nothing new; I mean, look at the winners we've elected in the US for the past few decades...

eh? What are you trying to say about Bush?

I think he's trying to say, and correct me if I'm wrong, when stupid people vote, we get stupid people in office who only pass stupid laws.

woot! Meritocracy rulz

actually voters aren’t as dumb as they sound because most dumb people don't even vote anymore so it should really just end up with the politically active voting

but whose to say your not the dumb voter maybe the smart thing is too vote X politician as opposed to Y they all seem pretty incompetent to me because who would spend all that time getting into politics if there not a complete turdsandwich/ douchbag (sp?) (you obviously didn’t watch South Park)

I think he's trying to say, and correct me if I'm wrong, when stupid people vote, we get stupid people in office who only pass stupid laws.

If indeed the majority of the population of a given country is stupid, it doesn't really matter who gets elected, we're all doomed anyway.

leaving the intelligent minority bewildered (and not moaning too loudly in case they get punched in the face by a staunch supporter of the Iraq war!). The thrust of this argument is that Governments must not behave rationally or they face the daunting economic prospect of losing POWER at the next election- provided that the original premise is true ie. the majority of adult voters are thick as pigshit!


seriously, what a douche bag, just because you fear war, no matter how irrational it may be, does not make you more intelligent.

If people like you ever take office I am going to be scared out of my mind.

seriously, what a douche bag, just because you fear war, no matter how irrational it may be, does not make you more intelligent.

If people like you ever take office I am going to be scared out of my mind.

smarter people than you have agreed with this argument.

and done so without stooping to name-calling.

"When a candidate for public office faces the voters...he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental -- men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack, or count himself lost. His one aim is to disarm suspicion, to arouse confidence in his orthodoxy, to avoid challenge. If he is a man of convictions, of enthusiasm, or self-respect, it is cruelly hard...

The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even a mob with him by the force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second or third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically the most devious and mediocre -- the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- HL Mencken

some interesting thoughts along these lines can be found at:

http://www.halexandria.org/dward819.htm

smarter people than you have agreed with this argument.

and done so without stooping to name-calling.




But it is all right for Brattain to use name calling against those of whom I now defend? Hm, interesting. Wait that is right! Anyone who disagrees with you are your ideas is automatically less intelligent. If they stoop to name calling (which is somehow rude, ignorant, arrogant, and wrong) then they are a fool, an imbecile, and just plain stupid.

1. majority of the voting public are as thick as two short planks

2. the intellectually challenged 'voting majority'

3. the majority of adult voters are thick as pigshit!


Next, I would like to know the significance of people consenting with (the) Brat's idea without "stooping to name calling". Especially those smarter people that agree with him without stooping to name calling.