Would you vote for an unsuccessful candidate?


View Poll Results: Would you vote for a candidate unsuccessful in life with with a heart and intellect?
I'd consider his ideas on their merits. 8 61.54%
If he's failed in life, he's surely unqualified to run the country. 3 23.08%
I don't know. Such persons normally don't run in elections anyway so I haven't thought about it. 1 7.69%
Other answer. 1 7.69%
Voters: 13. You may not vote on this poll

Machjo
#1
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
Free Thinker
#2
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
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

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
Republican
#4
I voted for unsucessful candidates all my life.
 
Machjo
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

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
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

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
#7
Though granted, not one politician I'ver ever voted for has won yet.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

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
Republican
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

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
Free Thinker
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

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
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

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.
 
Francis2004
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

I voted for unsucessful candidates all my life.

We vote for the same persons
 
Machjo
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

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
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Francis2004 View Post

We vote for the same persons

Welcome to the club.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Francis2004 View Post

We vote for the same persons

They never disappoint us.
 
Machjo
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

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
Republican
#17
I voted for the union/party. Conscience is the best strategy. I stood up for my principles every time.
 
Machjo
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

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
#19
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
Republican
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

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.
 
Machjo
#21
Don't get me wrong. I do believe that principled voting benefits us in the end in that it makes candidates aware that not all voters will vote for him just to keep the other candidate out. This certainly raises the standards of candidates. I guess it depends on how one thinks of it. But for me personally, I just see it as voting on principle, with no intention of winning necessarily, and on that ground I would not consider my voting habits strategic.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

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?

I see most of this as positive. For one he(she) is a fighter. A degree does not equate intelligence. It simply means the holder has been to school longer than most of us. As we see it at work to err is human, to really f**k up requires an engineer with a computer.
Far too many of our politicians are lawyers and intellectuals which means they have never really done anything just thought about it. And the results show. This is why Ignatief will not make a good PM. All he has done is been to school and then into politics, no work experience.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#23
Define "unsuccessful in life".

If you mean unsuccessful in building a treasurechest of cash for himself, I'd vote for a poor man quicker than for a rich man........
 
Machjo
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

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

No at all. But I do get the impression that most voters will vote only for a candidate who is rich or has some kind of exciting academic life or has been in politics for awhile, etc. That's not me, but that the impression I get of most voters, though I may be wrong.
 
Machjo
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

I see most of this as positive. For one he(she) is a fighter. A degree does not equate intelligence. It simply means the holder has been to school longer than most of us. As we see it at work to err is human, to really f**k up requires an engineer with a computer.
Far too many of our politicians are lawyers and intellectuals which means they have never really done anything just thought about it. And the results show. This is why Ignatief will not make a good PM. All he has done is been to school and then into politics, no work experience.

I think you're gone too far here. On the one hand, I don't see why even an poor unemployed person who's really struggled in life couldn't be an effective leader if he's intelligent and has a heart. I would not go to the other extreme though and argue that a university professor is necessarily the worst kind of politician. If that professor is at least humble enough to be willing to consult with the poor man and not dismiss his ideas off-hand just because he's poor or unemployed, then even that professor might be a good candidate too of course, and having a few professors in parliament could be a good thing tooa s long as they're intellelligent (not all professors are).

But to say that a professor is automatically a poor candidate goes too far in my opinion. Ideally, I think our parliament should reflect the diversity of Canada. Imagine if we had a few academics as MPs, along with a few former teachers, professors, farmers, unemployed divorced moms, engineers, physicians, artists, ex-military, etc., they could bounce ideas off of each other and come up with much more effective solutions for our country. But if they're all either ex-layers or businessmen, then that limits their range of knowledge considerably. How can they know how to fight poverty for example if they're never been there?
 
Colpy
Conservative
#26
I'm thinking of the two MPs I most admired recently....Chuck Cadman, and Chuck Strahl.......neither one a great success in the business world......and neither one either an academic nor a Pu*&^^cking lawyer.
 
Machjo
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Define "unsuccessful in life".

If you mean unsuccessful in building a treasurechest of cash for himself, I'd vote for a poor man quicker than for a rich man........

I won't define it too strictly, but what you typed there is among the ideas I had in mind. Again, I wouldn't dismiss the rich man too fast; there are some caring and honest rich men around just as there are swindling poor men.

But let's say a man who may have failed owing to just plain bad luck all his life, worked hard either earning money or finding a job, maybe got into a bad marriage with another who just wanted his citizenship, maybe underwent all kinds of other setbacks in life, decides to run in an election, poor and maybe even having just lost his job, but comes up with truly unique ideas to problems.

Or to take it farther, let's say he's a reformed ex-con, but has proven himself cahnged, caring, contributor to the community and has damn good ideas?

I'm just worried that our prejudices might in fact be blocking alot of really good ideas from getting heard in government.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#28
Not all members of the Triple 9 Society are successful, not all altruistic people are either. It makes no sense that a politician should be successful for a job in politics. Extremely few are successful as politicians and no-one is successful in everything.
 
ironsides
No Party Affiliation
#29
Read this somewhere. "I know we all would like to see the return of the greatest PM Canada has ever had, he got you thru the recession of 1990 and finally opened Canada up to the world. I am speaking of that man who is solely responsible for the Meech Lake Accord Brian Mulroney. He was the greatest, to think we blamed him for the decline of the Atlantic cod, thus putting an end to some of the Newfoundland fishing industry. His failure was because of the greed of the people, not him."
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

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?

A lot depends on what is regarded as unsuccessful. As far as I'm concerned his job doesn't have much to do with it. Is he able to support himself and his family? Does he have a good reputation as far as paying his debts and keeping his word? I would vote for such a guy as long as I agreed with his political philosophy and felt he could handle himself amongst all the big (slippery) fish.
 

Similar Threads

4
Candidate or glamour: how do you vote?
by Machjo | Nov 29th, 2008
2
Who's my candidate? Can you help?
by Machjo | Sep 20th, 2008
35
Stealing America Vote by Vote
by s_lone | Sep 12th, 2008
4