Would you vote for an unsuccessful candidate?

[Machjo]

Let's say a candidate running in your riding had no degree and worked a menial job and was was divorced, but proved himself an intellectual with a heart and unique solutions to difficult social problems, perhaps many of which he himself had experienced (though then again, he might not admit to it if somewhat ashamed of his lack of success in life owing to these obstacles). Would you consider voting for such a person?

 

[lone wolf]

He/she's probably got a better idea how to stretch a buck. Too much success (or money) tends to go to the head and they have no idea how to do without

 

[Machjo]

He/she's probably got a better idea how to stretch a buck. Too much success (or money) tends to go to the head and they have no idea how to do without

A dangerous quality to then bring to public policy. Maybe they can afford it, but that doesn't automatically translate to everyone else.

 

[darkbeaver]

I voted for unsucessful candidates all my life.

 

[Machjo]

He/she's probably got a better idea how to stretch a buck. Too much success (or money) tends to go to the head and they have no idea how to do without

That's another good point I hadn't thought about, but I was thinking more in terms of being more acutely aware and having first hand experience of serious obstacles to success in this country that academic or rich politicians who've always been successful in life might never have even thought of.

 

[Machjo]

I voted for unsucessful candidates all my life.

Sorry, I was referring more specifically to a candidate who may have been 'unsuccessful' in life, not necessarily at the polls.

 

[Machjo]

Though granted, not one politician I'ver ever voted for has won yet.

 

[darkbeaver]

A dangerous quality to then bring to public policy. Maybe they can afford it, but that doesn't automatically translate to everyone else.

What is a menial job? You've got two classes in there Machjo haven't you. You have the "public" who can afford it and "everyone else". Define everyone else please.

 

[darkbeaver]

Let's say a candidate running in your riding had no degree and worked a menial job and was was divorced, but proved himself an intellectual with a heart and unique solutions to difficult social problems, perhaps many of which he himself had experienced (though then again, he might not admit to it if somewhat ashamed of his lack of success in life owing to these obstacles). Would you consider voting for such a person?

Sounds like joe public to me. Are you saying joe is bad for the public cuz he's not in the other clubs.

 

[lone wolf]

A dangerous quality to then bring to public policy. Maybe they can afford it, but that doesn't automatically translate to everyone else.

Does the guy to whom broke means "only until I get to the Instant Teller" have any idea how to spend for survival?

 

[Machjo]

What is a menial job? You've got two classes in there Machjo haven't you. You have the "public" who can afford it and "everyone else". Define everyone else please.

OK, for the sake of argument, let's say the person takes a job as a janitor because that's all he can find at the moment owing to lack of formal qualifications, but he likes to read alot and read up on the news regularly, and cares for friends and family. A kind of intellectual working class guy.

As for 'everyone else', I was referring to the poor. That was bad wording on my part. My God, I'm not perfect after all.8O

 

[Francis2004]

I voted for unsucessful candidates all my life.

We vote for the same persons :lol:

 

[Machjo]

Does the guy to whom broke means "only until I get to the Instant Teller" have any idea how to spend for survival?

That depends. He may have slept on a park bench once and now runs his own business, owing in part to luck and in part to hard work. Another guy might have been pampered by rich parents all his life, and yet another might have worked had trying to find a job, but just wasn't lucky. You could also have the one pampered by rich parents all his life and circumstances land him on a park bench anyway. Just because his parents are rich doesn't mean he is; his father may have been a rich but cheap father who cared little for his kids, why another father, a poor one at that, may have spoilt his kid so that the son of the rich man knows what it means to be without while the son of the poor man has never known want. We find all kinds, and that's why I'd be more inclined to judge a candidate on his proven character and the merit of his ides than on any material success in life alone, since we have no idea what led him to his material wealth or poverty and so that has no bearing at all on his ability to run a country. HIt may be his principles that prevented him from getting rich just as it may be his lack of principles that made him rich. We never know.

 

[Machjo]

We vote for the same persons :lol:

Welcome to the club.

 

[darkbeaver]

We vote for the same persons :lol:

They never disappoint us.

 

[Machjo]

They never disappoint us.

No. Except for my first few times when I'd voted blindly and ignorantly for party stripes without knowing the candidate I was really voting for, I've always voted for candidates who seemd to me to not be afraid to stand up for their principles, even if it should cost votes. I guess that's the price to pay if we insist on voting our conscience instead of strategy.

 

[darkbeaver]

I voted for the union/party. Conscience is the best strategy. I stood up for my principles every time.

 

[Machjo]

I voted for the union/party. Conscience is the best strategy.

Interesting. I don't even consider voting on principle to be strategic in any way; it just seems to natural a course fo action to be labelled 'strategic'.

 

[Machjo]

Actually, I don'te ven see how voting on principle could be considered strategic at all, especially considering that you might ver well be splitting the vote between your preferred and second-preferred candidate, thus making your principled vote the worst strategy on the grounds that you might be helping your least preferred candidate to win.

Looking at it that way, I don't see how principled voting can be labelled strategic in the least.

 

[darkbeaver]

Interesting. I don't even consider voting on principle to be strategic in any way; it just seems to natural a course fo action to be labelled 'strategic'.

Natures strategys are supreme.