who shall we?

MayCaesar

Wanting to make a country a better place does not imply the ability to do so. A lot of well-meaning individuals, when given a lot of power, actually end up ruining everything: when your heart is in the right place, but your head is not, then you are arguably more dangerous than someone whose heart is in the wrong place

As for your first question, I am not sure where it is coming from, but I would say that picking the person with the most money has some merit. A person who has made a lot of money has figured something out about the world others have not; you do not just become a billionaire by chance, and millions of people try for it and fail.
With regards to the US presidential race, for example, there is a certain logic behind voting for Bloomberg based solely on him being the richest candidate from the pool. If he has managed his personal finances so incredibly well, then it is reasonable to expect that he will manage public finances well as well. To what end is another question, but all I am saying is that there is a certain logic in it. Not the one I would follow, but nonetheless.

Plaffelvohfen

@MayCaesar

So El Chapo or Escobar for president? Someone who won the lottery? Corporate robbers too?  It is laughable... 

MayCaesar

@Plaffelvohfen

Did you not read the last two sentences of my post? I am clearly not endorsing this kind of decision-making; I am merely saying that there is some logic behind it. I do not think this is a reasonable way to choose who to vote for, but assuming, for example, that this is the only piece of information you have about the candidates and you still want to vote for someone, voting for the richest one of them seems like a valid choice.

maxx

actually I said the one with the most money, not who earned it. as well, being rich and in power makes one desensitize to the average and or poor people. so many people who come to power do so by means of money and money alone; not by their ideas, or morals and values in regard to the rest of the country@MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

Absolutely, but statistically choosing the person with the most money will mostly choose someone who has earned their money.

It is true that rich people might be desensitized to the plight of poorer people, but, again, in some ways that could be a good thing. People who put emotions before cold pragmatic logic have the highest potential to do a lot of irreparable damage. It might seem reasonable at the first glance to elect average Joe who will know what common people go through every day - but does that Joe know how to address it properly, given his inexperience with finances, ignorance with regards to economics, world politics, etc.? I do not think so.

There is no easy answer to this questions. It is like picking the right stock investment strategy: there are millions of those, and nobody knows which works the best. I have seen all kinds of advice from stock experts, including even printing out names of stocks and throwing darts at them randomly, investing in whatever you hit. The reasoning being that the market expectations are already adjusted for, with all the risks and potential gains included in the price, hence, whatever you invest in, you will ride the same market wave.

Same with election strategy. Someone did an analysis once and found that picking a random person from the population is likely to lead to a better outcome for the country, than voting in a systematic process... But many did similar analyses and found that it does not work. There is no perfect strategy, and especially given how little one single vote affects the outcome, the whole thing might be pointless from the individual perspective. In order to significantly affect the election outcome, people should unite in large groups and vote as a group - but that has its own downsides, given the tendency of those groups over time to pervert the initial goals.

Whatever voting strategy you pick, make sure that it is based on logic, some logic. Better have flawed/wrong logic, than just operate on emotions and become influenced by carefully crafted political narratives. As they say in chess, "It is better to have a bad plan than no plan whatsoever". Granted, consciously choosing to vote based on your emotions also has some logic behind it; you could say, for example, that the politician offering the most emotionally appealing narrative has won the meritocratic competition and, hence, deserves to be elected.

At the end of the day, every voting strategy, including the absence of one, is a strategy.

TKDB

Why not Vote for the individual who won't pander to the pro Marijuana crowd,
the pro Illegal Immigration crowd,
the pro Open Border crowd,
the pro Sanctuary City crowd,
the pro Black Lives Matters crowd,
the pro Criminal, and Offenders crowd,
the pro Gun Extremists crowd, 
the pro Abortion crowd, 
the pro Socialism, or pro Liberal crowds,
the pro Illegal Drug crowd,
the pro Free College tuition crowd,
and the pro Medicare for all crowd.

"What is the Medicare for All plan?

The Medicare for All Act will provide comprehensive health care to every man, woman and child in our country -- without out-of-pocket expenses. ... It would allow all Americans, regardless of their income, to get the health care they need when they need it. Medicare for All is the most cost-effective health care plan.

Senate.gov › sanders › download

The Medicare for All Act of 2019

More results

How will Medicare for all be paid for?

As workers shift into the new system, employers will be required to pay either 75 percent of what they are currently paying for health care costs for each of their employees who enroll in Medicare for All, or the 7.5 percent payroll tax, whichever is higher. "

Plaffelvohfen

@MayCaesar

Problem is a country is not a business and the President's role is not managerial but that of a helmsman or pilot... Running a country as a business is a bad idea...

https://hbr.org/1996/01/a-country-is-not-a-company

maxx

actually the chess analogy is not a good one. plans and stratagies are only as good as until your opponent makes a move. as well I think intelligence in various fields, rather than just economics is more important for our country as a whole. it seems that those who "buy" the election may be good at making money but also are good at spending it as they see fit, not using common sense. money is not a substitute, nor knowing how to earn money for understanding and knowing how to run the country.@MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

Eh, no, that is not true at all. Plans and strategies in chess take your opponent's possible moves into account, obviously. The point here is that you need to have some sort of a plan on what you are going to do in the nearest future; if you just move pieces around and only defend from basic threats, then you will not win a game against anyone who does more than that. Similarly, if you just vote whatever your gut feeling suggests and do not have a more solid plan in mind, then those politicians who do have a plan will use your gut feeling against you.

Intelligence in various fields is not necessarily a boon, and there have been countless examples of rulers with deep knowledge in a lot of different fields who could not put that knowledge to a good use and ruined their countries. Lenin is a good example of that, an outlandishly intelligent and knowledgeable guy whose intelligence, sadly, did not translate into practical actions.

I think that something else here is needed, some kind of a "street smartness", in conjunction with assertiveness and sharp knowledge in some selected topics. Politics is a dirty business, and you need to know how to navigate it without losing yourself in the process.

maxx

yes  and perhaps one day we can find a way to play chess together@MayCaesar

Happy_Killbot

Although it is possible that anything could happen, It kind of seems like we are coming down to just 3 candidates for the 2020 election- Bernie Sanders, Michel Bloomberg, Donald Trump.

The worst part about his lineup, is that besides being no answer with which I am completely satisfied with (thus is elections) it kind of seems like it is coming down to a rock-paper-scissors kind of scenario with these 3.

• If Bloomberg runs against Trump, there is a good chance he will beat him because all except Trump's loyal base see Bloomberg as a moderate, and besides he has more money.
• If Sanders runs against Trump, many people will refrain from voting for Sanders on the grounds that he is a Socialist, so many people might prefer to stick with the devil they know.
• With Sanders running against Bloomberg in the primaries, Sanders is dominating Bloomberg because his promises are closer to what most of the DNC wants.

So, that's how I think it is.

Blockhead-Oligarch-Socialist- shoot!