Bryan Mullins: The New Idea Called "Electocracy" Vs. Democracy

I. There is much more to being a leader than just experience. II. Talent in many cases beats experience. [1] III. It is impossible for the majority of the United States to make unbiased decisions. IV. Unqualified presidents have excelled where qualified presidents have horribly failed in the past. [2] V. Electocracy leaders can be corrupt and easily cripple the nation. Argument I - For convenience’s sake, I will focus on the role of POTUS. Being a President requires charisma, unbiased decisions, intelligence, and mental fortitude. These are qualities that cannot be learned through arguing with people on a weekly basis to get a law vetoed or passed as a politician, or simply bossing people around all day. Being the President requires personality and natural talent. Democracy allows individuals to evaluate all parts of a President Elect before deciding on who to vote for. In the case of an Electocracy, you are basing whether you should vote for a certain President Elect purely on their experience which is extremely flawed decision making. What if the President Elect in question is an extreme conservative who won’t pass any laws? The public won’t be allowed to know this as that information would make their voting decision biased. In an Electocracy, many Presidents will be elected as long as they have more experience than anyone else even if they have terrible decision making skills and a complete lack of intelligence. Argument II - I’m sure everyone has observed an individual in a proffession that has a decade or more of experience, but is still very unskilled. Such as a school teacher, or an athlete. A multitude of individuals get to a point in their career where they regurgitate the same methods without any consideration into how they can improve and simply never do. This is especially true for politicians and leaders. As I’ve said before, the skills required to be an effective leader/politician includes charisma, unbiased decisions, intelligence, and mental fortitude. These skills generally need special training, they are not mechanical skills that you can simpy learn by performing the same action over and over. An socially inept individual will not become a social butterfly simply by talking to others. Someone not so bright will not become a genius by completing puzzles or playing chess often. These are qualities that mostly rely on your natural genetics. As talent beats experiance in many, if not most cases, basing a vote purely on experience is completely flawed. Argument III + V - I couldn't expand these arguments. The character limit is only 4,000. I will do so in the next round. Argument IV - In an electocracy you must vote for President Elects purely on experience so allow me to present a voting decision based on two different presidents. President Elect A has served the majority of their life in the Army and has nearly no experience with politics or knowledge of the economy. President B headed a group that channeled thirty million tons of food, clothing, and supplies to weakened European countries in WW1, worked as secretaary of commerce for many years, and has extensive knowledge on USA and it’s world affairs. Voting purely on experience as an electocracy would, President B will win by a landslide. These two are actually real Presidents. President A is Dwight Eisenhower, who went on to ease tensions enough to avoid nuclear war (Cold War) with many other coutries and as well as ending the Korean War. Eisenhower was largely underqualified to become POTUS, yet he ended up becoming one of USA’s most successful presidents. President B on the other hand is Herbert Hoover. One of the worst Presidents in American history who did little to nothing to solve the economic depression and ordered a miliatary force to attack a group of peaceful protesters which resulted in innocent casualities. This example clearly shows that voting purely on qualifications is entirely flawed.Sources:[1] https://goo.gl...[2] https://goo.gl...