Are Democratic Elections just Popularity Contests?or 'Are democratic elections really about policies?

[Exarch]

for a job as important as running the country, it seems we only elect the most likable or least detested politician.
how do we know they're really qualified for the job?

people wont hire someone without a law degree to act as their barrister, you wont go to see the most popular person in town about gallstones or other health related issues so why is it that for a job as important as steering the country on the most prosperous and kick arse path that the only requirements appear to be

1) be popular to get rich ppl to sponsor you
2) be rich to get ppl to like you by buying favour with News corporations.
3) be popular all around to get ppl to support you.

Discuss

[blackwatersix]

In my opinion, yes, democratic elections are just popularity contests. While it may be true that people vote for the party platforms, in the absence of a clear difference between party platforms people tend to choose the popular ones.

[Civil1z@tion]

To a degree yes, but there are rational bases for certain politicians being popular. Popularity is gained by having the right views on certain issues and by making people believe you can actually deliver on your promises. Throw in good speaking ability and good looks and those are the major factors contributing to popularity. Democracy does work by using the perception of the people on who is most competant not an objective measurement of skill. However, no other system really gets passed the subjectivity of who will make a good leader. Even political scientists can disagree about what type of person should lead a country under a certain set of circumstances (which is why political science isn't, as of yet, a real science). Given that there is no definitive way to determine which leader or course of action will be most effective for a nation, democracy is not designed to produce the best leaders possible. No system can do that. Instead, democracy is design to produce the most responsive leaders possible. This means a functioning democracy responds to the public's desires, whims, and fancies. This is better than other systems not because it produces better leadership, but because the people are responsible for their nation's successes and failures and thus they deserve the advantages and consequences that come from the actions of their government. If the people force the politicians into an idiotic policy, they deserve the negative consequences they get. Conversly, if they influence the politicians into a good policy, they deserve the benefits that result. Under a non-democratic system, the people have little-to-no say in how their government functions and thus any benefits or problems they get from government actions are things they don't deserve/

[Mythos]

Yes.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Yes. Look at Obama. He got in soley because he is an Democrat and he is black. If he did not, please show me some good solid proof of this.

[Stalins Ghost]

Yes. Look at Obama. He got in soley because he is an Democrat and he is black. If he did not, please show me some good solid proof of this.

Sure! Just so long as you provide proof to qualify your statement.

Re: Are Democratic Elections just Popularity Contests?

That depends, I would say, on the constitutional framework of the democracy under scrutiny. Two party Democracies are probably the worst for being "popularity contests", since there's only two hugely broad policy blocs to vote for. A single charismatic (or uncharismatic) politician can make all the difference when people don't really know what on earth they're voting for.

[Jabberwock]

Yes. Look at Obama. He got in soley because he is an Democrat and he is black. If he did not, please show me some good solid proof of this.

Jesse Jackson was black and a Democrat too. He was very popular too then.

There's your proof that black and Democrat doesn't mean anything. Now where's the proof for your statement?

[SturmChurro]

Depends on who is voting, like if it is someone who just wants money or just likes the person being elected then yes, but if its a person who really truly believes in what is saying and wants whatever the person being elected is promising, then no.

[Koelkastmagneet]

Yeah well, what other alternative is there?

[Desperado †]

Well, that's what what democracy is. The questions are whether politicians are popular for the right things, and whether we actualy have true representative democracy. Answering the first is hard, but there's no better system, answering the second is clear: no.

[Desperado †]

O.P, you should change the question to something like: 'Are democratic elections charisma contests?' or 'Are democratic elections about policies?', because I think that's what you're actually asking. Democracy is inherently about what is most popular among the people, but I don't think this is what you're questioning.

[CarbEast]

1) be popular to get rich ppl to sponsor you
2) be rich to get ppl to like you by buying favour with News corporations.
3) be popular all around to get ppl to support you.

But aren't these exactly the qualifications that a politician requires? After a politician gets in power all his job is to make state bureaucracy do what his patrons want to. Just pass an order from one to other - hardly a lot of work. So basically becoming popular and staying popular is the only work politicians actually do. And you mentioned exactly the qualifications they need to do such job well.

The profession of politician is very similar to profession of barrister. They don't choose what point of view to defend. They are hired to represent a side in a case.

[Exarch]

But aren't these exactly the qualifications that a politician requires? After a politician gets in power all his job is to make state bureaucracy do what his patrons want to. Just pass an order from one to other - hardly a lot of work. So basically becoming popular and staying popular is the only work politicians actually do. And you mentioned exactly the qualifications they need to do such job well.

The profession of politician is very similar to profession of barrister. They don't choose what point of view to defend. They are hired to represent a side in a case.

hmmm, sounds a lot like cronysim/crony capitalism/nepotism if a president/prime minister only emphasizes the interests of those with money or those who supported him.
ideally, a president/prime minister should steer the country for the best path instead of (as i've observed) short term tangible gains to make it look like he's getting the job done. or at least to the news stations.

@Desperado

O.P, you should change the question to something like: 'Are democratic elections charisma contests?' or 'Are democratic elections about policies?', because I think that's what you're actually asking. Democracy is inherently about what is most popular among the people, but I don't think this is what you're questioning.

excellent points, will do so immediately

[CarbEast]

hmmm, sounds a lot like cronysim/crony capitalism/nepotism if a president/prime minister only emphasizes the interests of those with money or those who supported him.

Not necessarily as long as patrons agree not to abuse their power. Of course they are trying to do good for themselves, but as far as strategic decisions go, their interests and interests of others aren't that much different. Any industrial conglomerate want economy to develop, consumer spendings to increase, country's international influence to grow. Everyone's final goals are the same. What they disagree upon is the optimal way of reaching these goals.

ideally, a president/prime minister should steer the country for the best path instead of (as i've observed) short term tangible gains to make it look like he's getting the job done. or at least to the news stations.

Ideally yes, but it's not how capitalist democracy (oligarchy) usually works like.

[Manco]

I would even challenge that it is a popularity contest. Most votes have been fixed beforehand by people who will vote Democrat or Republic regardless of the candidates.
If it was true popularity contest or even about policies, we'd see much greater shifts in votes instead of the measly few percentage points.

[blackwatersix]

I would even challenge that it is a popularity contest. Most votes have been fixed beforehand by people who will vote Democrat or Republic regardless of the candidates.
If it was true popularity contest or even about policies, we'd see much greater shifts in votes instead of the measly few percentage points.

If we hold that a certain percentage would vote democrat and republican, regardless of who's running, then what about the independents? Does it become a contest between who is more popular for them?

[Blau&Gruen]

Are Democratic Elections just Popularity Contests?or 'Are democratic elections really about policies?

Democratic elections are dead serious.

[Exarch]

Democratic elections are the decision-making process by which a political entity expresses her general will, besides the referenda which are the second form of the expression of the general will. Courts can also express the general will. And then there is also a dialectic. I would think in that sense elections are the contrary of popularity contests but that where you are asked to come to a decision for which you are accountable because your decision can have good and bad consequences for you and other people.

good points, just wanted to comment on your point about courts expressing the general popular view; i disagree with courts being pressured by the public/media/mob to rule a certain way-here, i'm thinking of certain high profile trials in the past where injustice has occurred because people were so convinced via media hype that the plaintiffs were guilty
eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_C...nt_and_release

[Blau&Gruen]

good points, just wanted to comment on your point about courts expressing the general popular view; i disagree with courts being pressured by the public/media/mob to rule a certain way-here, i'm thinking of certain high profile trials in the past where injustice has occurred because people were so convinced via media hype that the plaintiffs were guilty
eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_C...nt_and_release

That with the courts came me to mind only because judges are elected or installed by a democratic process and court decisions can also be majority decisions. Sure, the political will that is realized through a democratic election can also fail. Therefore, it should never be final for all times but final only for a limited time, e.g. an election period, or until a law is revised through a democratic process of forming a new public will. The voter is right until he decides to correct that next election, - to say so. The same is true for referenda. Also a court decision that went through all the instances can be revised if there is new evidence as your example shows. It is in case of final court decisions a bit more complicate than it is in relation to elections and referenda.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

Well we do not really have Democratic elections in any nation.. but the modern Republic elections are really a popularity contest.. and really a choice between the worst of 2 evils.. The Republicans and Democrats for example.. Are just gangs.. and all they do is fight over the bribes that the corporations are constantly dropping them to get their way.. They are the same.. just puppets of the bourgeois.