-
In my view, if you train people to run the country, then you are teaching them what to do, so the trainers dictate how the country is run.
We should be electing people who are experts, experts at understanding evidence, weighing up all the factors, and using all the information to make an informed decision, and people who are experts at making difficult decisions.
Question from me, again not loaded: Do you think we should elect politicians based on their experience or on their goals/plans?
Should the public be deciding on the suitability of one candidate over another based on their ability to do the job or based on what they want to do to the country?
NurseHolliday-
Should the public be deciding on the suitability of one candidate over another based on their ability to do the job or based on what they want to do to the country?
Both: but accepting that 'ability to do the job' is having the ability to assemble the right team, listen to the right people, make good enough decisions and have the belief and guts to see things through.
And have cool hair. Always cool hair.
-
Question from me, again not loaded: Do you think we should elect politicians based on their experience or on their goals/plans?
I agree with Howard, both.
Should the public be deciding on the suitability of one candidate over another based on their ability to do the job or based on what they want to do to the country?
Again, both.
But my question wasn't really meant to lead to normative conclusions on my part. Instead to question the normative claims coming from others that politicians shouldn't be certain things. Which was maybe true, but I wasn't convinced.
Howard
Question (not loaded): we demand expertise of the people who do everything from fix our plumbing to provide us with health care. People with training and experience. What is it about running the country which we feel doesn't demand any such training or knowledge? That you can pop out of your own work on sabbatical and still be a success at it?