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

Here are my first rebuttals. 1. "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." It is not flawed that we must choose a president based on experience, logic, and perseverance. The public will, of course, be able to know the clear difference between an experienced, logical candidate; And, an inexperienced, illogical, foolish candidate. Electocracy is not for the election of multiple presidents, it is only the election of one president. You misrepresented Electocracy. Democracy is the election of a president of either an inexperienced, illogical, and foolish candidate; Or, A celebrity, for example, Oprah Winfrey. Electocracy also allows evaluation of candidates, and intellectual debates and conventions, but the clear difference is the result of the victory of one candidate to become a presumptive nominee is not based on bias, opinion, and influence. Democracy has many flaws, Staying undetermined of what the elected president will do for the country, instead of allowing an experienced person to be elected. 2. "As talent beats experiance in many, if not most cases, basing a vote purely on experience is completely flawed." Talent has no value, as I have spotted a spelling error, I will debunk this argument. This argument is flawed, because it is saying that all experienced people have no intelligent, or credible (which is false). Also, you are misrepresenting Electocracy by saying that people who will properly lead our country should not be elected, which would cause this nation to collapse by lack of leadership. 3. "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." First, I spotted a spelling error, second, it should not divide our nation, this entire argument is flawed. Comparing two presidents by bias is the reason Democracy fails, Electocracy determines which president must be elected based on political experience is NOT flawed, Democracy is flawed. I await your argument you promised to expand within the 4,000 character limit. I keep these debates simple and as equal as possible. Music inspiration for Electocracy: [1] https://m.youtube.com... [2] https://m.youtube.com...