Democratic Politicians vs Average Voter

[Infected Mushroom]

Please consider the average morality of the elected politician (all levels combined… municipal, state, federal) against the morality of the regular voter.

Who is more morally corrupt? Or is it about the same?

Options:

1. The average elected politician is a little bit more morally corrupt than the average voter

2. The average elected politician is vastly more morally corrupt than the average voter

3. The average elected politician has essentially the same level of moral corruption as the average voter

4. The average elected politician is a little less morally corrupt than the average voter

5. The average elected politician is vastly less morally corrupt than the average voter

My take? Option 2. The system promotes vote seeking, competitive behavior, duplicity, calculated passive aggressiveness, scheming, and PR framing. Hence with a pool of winners, you get what the system incentivizes. And you can see it in terms of how politicians conduct themselves in Congress etc.

What do you think?

[USS Monitor]

People are people.

Elected officials just have the power to do more damage.

[Infected Mushroom]

People are people.

Elected officials just have the power to do more damage.

But is there some kind of selection bias where less moral but highly calculating and extroverted individuals are more likely to win in elections?

[USS Monitor]

People are people.

Elected officials just have the power to do more damage.

But is there some kind of selection bias where less moral but highly calculating and extroverted individuals are more likely to win in elections?

On the other hand, if someone has done terrible things, that can come to light during an election and damage their campaign.

[El Lazaro]

That’s a tough question. I think, if you put them in a ring with each other, the average voter would win mostly because they’d be younger. The mean age of the average federal politician is near 60, while voters are closer to 40. The 20 years of age really tips the scales in favor of the voter.

[Infected Mushroom]

That’s a tough question. I think, if you put them in a ring with each other, the average voter would win mostly because they’d be younger. The mean age of the average federal politician is near 60, while voters are closer to 40. The 20 years of age really tips the scales in favor of the voter.

You’re saying older people are more corrupt?

[Radiatia]

I spent a few years working in Parliament and surrounded by politicians and to be honest... they're about the same.

Some politicians are better and worse than others, but ultimately the moral shortcomings found amongst politicians is proportional to the moral shortcomings you find in society.

A lot of people like to bash politicians and say they're liars and corrupt and "oh we'd never do anything like that" but the reality is that such behaviour is no more or less prevalent 'inside the Beltway' than it is in the average corporate office, or sports team, or even family unit.

People just like to have someone to target so they can continue deluding themselves into thinking they're good people, despite the fact that the vast majority of people absolutely are not.

[The Holy Therns]

People are people.

Elected officials just have the power to do more damage.

But is there some kind of selection bias where less moral but highly calculating and extroverted individuals are more likely to win in elections?

You'd be surprised how introvert some politicians can be.

[Infected Mushroom]

Can honest people succeed in democratic politics? Statistically?

[Narland]

Please consider the average morality of the elected politician (all levels combined… municipal, state, federal) against the morality of the regular voter.

Who is more morally corrupt? Or is it about the same?

Options:

1. The average elected politician is a little bit more morally corrupt than the average voter

2. The average elected politician is vastly more morally corrupt than the average voter

3. The average elected politician has essentially the same level of moral corruption as the average voter

4. The average elected politician is a little less morally corrupt than the average voter

5. The average elected politician is vastly less morally corrupt than the average voter

My take? Option 2. The system promotes vote seeking, competitive behavior, duplicity, calculated passive aggressiveness, scheming, and PR framing. Hence with a pool of winners, you get what the system incentivizes. And you can see it in terms of how politicians conduct themselves in Congress etc.

What do you think?

I think that any part of a system that empowers a person to exercise vague and arbitrary authority over the hearts, minds, and will of others is the corruption, and the degree that any polititian deviates from the liberality of sound moral judgment (wisdom) enters a downward spiral that will eventually conform his identity to the despotic allowances of that system over the lives, liberties, and justly gained properties of those of whom and for whom he ought respect. The longer one is in authority regardless of the process(es) of gaining that power, the greater the degree of susceptibility to practice the corruption.

Generally, the average elected politician starts out just as morally corrupt as the average voter of that jurisdiction, and it usually downhill from there unless the voters and the politician have already taken the moral responsibility to govern themselves apart from that which corrupts (the power of external governance). Regardless of the political processes a people must govern themselves morally well, or they of necessity will be governed by tyrants.

Can honest people succeed in democratic politics? Statistically?

Yes. For at least one term, and then they had better have already been prepared to hand over the reigns of power to the next like minded politician willing to do the same.

[Infected Mushroom]

Please consider the average morality of the elected politician (all levels combined… municipal, state, federal) against the morality of the regular voter.

Who is more morally corrupt? Or is it about the same?

Options:


My take? Option 2. The system promotes vote seeking, competitive behavior, duplicity, calculated passive aggressiveness, scheming, and PR framing. Hence with a pool of winners, you get what the system incentivizes. And you can see it in terms of how politicians conduct themselves in Congress etc.

What do you think?

I think that any system that empowers a person to exercise vague and arbitrary authority over the hearts, minds, and will of others is the corruption, and the degree that any polititian deviates from the liberality of sound moral judgment (wisdom) enters a downward spiral that will eventually conform his identity to the despotic allowances of that system over the lives, liberties, and justly gained properties of those of whom and for whom he ought respect. The longer one is in authority regardless of the process(es) of gaining that power, the greater the degree of susceptibility to practice the corruption.

Generally, the average elected politician starts out just as morally corrupt as the average voter of that jurisdiction, and it usually downhill from there unless the voters and the politician have already taken the moral responsibility to govern themselves apart from that which corrupts (the power of external governance). Regardless of the political processes a people must govern themselves morally well, or they of necessity will be governed by tyrants.

Can honest people succeed in democratic politics? Statistically?

Yes. For at least one term, and then they had better have already been prepared to hand over the reigns of power to the next like minded politician willing to do the same.

So elected offices should have a restriction of one term?

[Narland]

I think that the part of any system that empowers a person to exercise vague and arbitrary authority over the hearts, minds, and will of others is the corruption, and the degree that any polititian deviates from the liberality of sound moral judgment (wisdom) enters a downward spiral that will eventually conform his identity to the despotic allowances of that system over the lives, liberties, and justly gained properties of those of whom and for whom he ought respect. The longer one is in authority regardless of the process(es) of gaining that power, the greater the degree of susceptibility to practice the corruption.

Generally, the average elected politician starts out just as morally corrupt as the average voter of that jurisdiction, and it usually downhill from there unless the voters and the politician have already taken the moral responsibility to govern themselves apart from that which corrupts (the power of external governance). Regardless of the political processes a people must govern themselves morally well, or they of necessity will be governed by tyrants.


Yes. For at least one term, and then they had better have already been prepared to hand over the reigns of power to the next like minded politician willing to do the same.

So elected offices should have a restriction of one term?

It is a case by case basis. If they cannot maintain their liberality against the corruption of that system, most definitely, one term is enough. Those who can exercise sound moral judgment while resisting the tendency to that corruption should run again. But a good sign that they have been corrupted is their insistence to run for re-election when it is self-evident that they no longer respect (to any degree) the liberty of others to freely engage in their inherent right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in self-governing and lawful manner (apart from the affairs of state).

[Dogmeat]

Can honest people succeed in democratic politics? Statistically?

Maybe not. But honest people never succeed in autocratic politics.

Dictators are evil, lying, murderous scumbags. One and all.

[Umeria]

Moral character doesn't really matter when it comes to politics, and psychoanalyzing politicians to try to interpret their actions misses the point.

The corruption that matters is financial corruption.

[Ostroeuropa]

Speaking from experience the people who go into careers as politicians are of the following types:

1. people obsessed with the approval of those around them and who will largely do whatever makes their peers like them.

2. Uber ideological fringe folks.

3. Power-grabbing moral vacuums.

4. Single-issue activists who got really mad about something.



All of these types of people are more susceptible to corruption than the general public, except for perhaps the ideological fringe weirdos.

People obsessed with approval will engaged in corruption provided their peers are doing it.

Power grabbing moral vacuums do corruption because ofcourse they do.

Single issue activists will do corruption because the power grabbing vacuum type will be like "We'll do the thing you care about as long as you're corrupt with us" and that's pretty much all the single issue activist cares about.

The fringe ideological weirdos, people who actually have firm principles and believe in shit consistently, are less likely to be corrupt, but will seem cringe to the public so there's not usually many of those. The public seems to be like "We need a token Ayn Rand nutjob in the senate and don't have one, so he can be our local rep" but if there's already one there, everyone will be like "Yeah these ideas are already repped tho, and you are cringe.".

I think because in order to go into politics you need to be a certain sort of person, you're going to end up more corrupt.

The corrupt sections are held in check by the public occasionally threatening the power-seeking types "If you don't tone it down, we'll elect a fucking weirdo" and they reply "You wouldn't dare" and the public says "Maybe not, but if this gets much worse, fuck around and find out.".

Tale as old as time.

As a general rule if a politician isn't hyper focused on a specific issue but instead is trying to have a complete vision of society they're pitching you, you'll be able to write them up as either;

1. Fucking cringe weirdo's with ideological views

2. Complete doormats

or

3. Corrupt and without any principles.


It's why you should probably always go for the single issue activists when you can.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

I need an option between “a little bit corrupt” and “vastly corrupt”

[Haganham]

But is there some kind of selection bias where less moral but highly calculating and extroverted individuals are more likely to win in elections?

On the other hand, if someone has done terrible things, that can come to light during an election and damage their campaign.

AH HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Oh today is going to be a good day now.

[Ethel mermania]

What was kissengers line?

Crooked politicians make it rough on the 10% who are honest

[Eahland]

The critical bit is that the average elected official is far, far, far less corrupt than the average autocrat.

[Adamede]

Please consider the average morality of the elected politician (all levels combined… municipal, state, federal) against the morality of the regular voter.

Who is more morally corrupt? Or is it about the same?

Options:

1. The average elected politician is a little bit more morally corrupt than the average voter

2. The average elected politician is vastly more morally corrupt than the average voter

3. The average elected politician has essentially the same level of moral corruption as the average voter

4. The average elected politician is a little less morally corrupt than the average voter

5. The average elected politician is vastly less morally corrupt than the average voter

My take? Option 2. The system promotes vote seeking, competitive behavior, duplicity, calculated passive aggressiveness, scheming, and PR framing. Hence with a pool of winners, you get what the system incentivizes. And you can see it in terms of how politicians conduct themselves in Congress etc.

What do you think?

Still less corrupt than authoritarian shitholes like Russia, which is so corrupt it crippled its own military.

[Myrensis]

To quote the man:

Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky, they don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families and American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses, and American universities, and they're elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do, folks. This is what we have to offer, it's what our system produces: garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders.

[Infected Mushroom]

Speaking from experience the people who go into careers as politicians are of the following types:

1. people obsessed with the approval of those around them and who will largely do whatever makes their peers like them.

2. Uber ideological fringe folks.

3. Power-grabbing moral vacuums.

4. Single-issue activists who got really mad about something.



All of these types of people are more susceptible to corruption than the general public, except for perhaps the ideological fringe weirdos.

People obsessed with approval will engaged in corruption provided their peers are doing it.

Power grabbing moral vacuums do corruption because ofcourse they do.

Single issue activists will do corruption because the power grabbing vacuum type will be like "We'll do the thing you care about as long as you're corrupt with us" and that's pretty much all the single issue activist cares about.

The fringe ideological weirdos, people who actually have firm principles and believe in shit consistently, are less likely to be corrupt, but will seem cringe to the public so there's not usually many of those. The public seems to be like "We need a token Ayn Rand nutjob in the senate and don't have one, so he can be our local rep" but if there's already one there, everyone will be like "Yeah these ideas are already repped tho, and you are cringe.".

I think because in order to go into politics you need to be a certain sort of person, you're going to end up more corrupt.

The corrupt sections are held in check by the public occasionally threatening the power-seeking types "If you don't tone it down, we'll elect a fucking weirdo" and they reply "You wouldn't dare" and the public says "Maybe not, but if this gets much worse, fuck around and find out.".

Tale as old as time.

As a general rule if a politician isn't hyper focused on a specific issue but instead is trying to have a complete vision of society they're pitching you, you'll be able to write them up as either;

1. Fucking cringe weirdo's with ideological views

2. Complete doormats

or

3. Corrupt and without any principles.


It's why you should probably always go for the single issue activists when you can.

I see… This makes sense. Did you work with an MP or a campaign?