Why do we vote for one politician over an other?
Some vote for the person they most associate with. People take into account their ethnicity or religion. Their socioeconomic background or what state they are from or preside over. Many personal factors contribute to many voters choices, but these are not the only merits.
There are those who vote on the issues. For most voters, this means one or two issues that are meaningful to that voter and all the others are just the cherry on top or collateral damage. They have tunnel vision in regards to the whole package, as long as their immediate and important needs are filled.
Then there are the voters who vote party, irregardless of what they believe the candidate believes in. They truly believe in voting along party lines at all times. Ironically, nowadays this seems to be the most common reason for a politician to get someones votes. Most people, when polled, do not know the candidates views on the topics and vote on what has been the historical record, or assertion of a record, that the party has pushed.
Sadly, in all of this, we have lost track of one of the main reasons we pull that lever for a given candidate. It's the essence of why we place these men and women in positions of power. At the end of the day, we hope, in the back of our minds, that we have chosen the smartest candidate. Nearly every candidate has gone to an elite school and graduated with high marks. Most of these men have been grooming themselves for this day for years. The true fault in this practice of assumption is that most of these men aren't much smarter than the average Joe. Sure we hear about Clinton's alleged photographic memory and his high IQ, but that memory could have masked some deficiencies. We've heard stories of Bush's low IQ, but many articles have been written to the contrary. How these are believable about this gaffe master, is beyond me, but they say even Einstein was aloof at times. It's a crap shoot when voting this way, because we're making assumptions on intelligence based on strategically rehearsed answers to generally well known questions. Today I read about Romney choosing a man he considered for running mate to play the role of Obama in the rehearsal debate. I assume Obama will be doing the same, although he's a little more seasoned after doing this just four years ago.
So here's my plan. What if we start a third party. A true party of the people, to represent the people. There will be one criteria. Both current Democrats and Republicans may join, as may any other affiliation. This party will not be separated by political beliefs, but by another measure. Men and women of all socioeconomic levels are welcome. PhD level members as well as those who are high school dropouts are welcome also. There may be Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, or any other religion welcome. We do not discriminate in any way. Blacks, Whites, Asians or any other race, creed or color is fully welcome to join. There will be only one prerequisite to join. Measured intelligence.
The average intelligence quotient, based on Stanford-Binet and the Wechsler would be used to judge this. There may be other factors involved, but this would be the basis. Now, the world average on both tests is a grade of 100 (98 in the U.S). One standard deviation put 2/3 of the population between 85-115. The second group is between 70-84 and 116-129. With the addition of these two groups, we include approximately 95% of the world. The latter is considered advanced intelligence, but not high intelligence, or "gifted and talented." These people, while intelligent, would not be welcome into the party. Only those who achieve scores above 130 would be allowed. Now while scores may vary between the two tests, they are generally very close. Obviously, any Members of Mensa would be welcome with open arms.
Now, I know what you're thinking. This is elitist. This is segregation. This is some sort of horrible "supreme race" I'm trying to create. Hear me through. When you want advice on the economy, you don't ask your cousin Sal who is making a pizza or fixing a car. You ask a Nobel prize winning economist or a professor with a wall full of degrees. Just the same, you're not going to ask that economist to fix your brakes. We're not insulting anyone, because all jobs are important in their own way and allow us to continue through time and evolve. What I'm saying is, let's be sure we're getting the smartest people. Completely sure.
Now, some may say "why would I vote for someone in a party, I'm not allowed to be in." Listen carefully, you're not allowed to be in the current two party system's parties either. You may think you are, but it's a box on a questionnaire and you aren't being invited to their ranch for Labor Day. Why wouldn't the average American entrust a group of people, who have selected one person (we would have no primary) to be their mouthpiece? Why wouldn't we want to know that this man or woman will put together a cabinet of geniuses? I know I would feel a lot more comfortable knowing that people who see things in literal and abstract ways are going over our day to day problems and not being lobbied or persuaded by an ideology.
Imagine, if we took the smartest people, from all parties, all nationalities, all religious denominations and we took, men & women, straight and gay, regardless of their belief system and we worked to create a more perfect world with logic. With math and science. With reason that supplants beliefs based on faith alone. We took all the good, from all the best minds and channeled it into a solution for our problems. No lobbyists, no compromises for political gain. None of the bureaucracy we've come to despise. Why wouldn't we trust the smartest people in the room to get it done. It sure isn't getting done with the misfits we've been throwing in the White House the last 50 years.
Some of you might not like this, because you feel embarrassed you may not join. Some of you may be embarrassed you qualify, but you've underachieved in your life. Maybe it's you we need to speak to. Maybe it's the man with the near genius IQ who's been out of work for three years or has been mopping floors or delivering pizza. Maybe it's the kid who can't afford to go to college and has to take care of his family. Maybe it's the person who has been looking for a chance to make a difference. Out of every In this land of ours with over 310 million people, there are only about 7.5 million who fit the bill. A minority for sure, but isn't this the kind of minority, you'd be comfortable taking direction from?
Some vote for the person they most associate with. People take into account their ethnicity or religion. Their socioeconomic background or what state they are from or preside over. Many personal factors contribute to many voters choices, but these are not the only merits.
There are those who vote on the issues. For most voters, this means one or two issues that are meaningful to that voter and all the others are just the cherry on top or collateral damage. They have tunnel vision in regards to the whole package, as long as their immediate and important needs are filled.
Then there are the voters who vote party, irregardless of what they believe the candidate believes in. They truly believe in voting along party lines at all times. Ironically, nowadays this seems to be the most common reason for a politician to get someones votes. Most people, when polled, do not know the candidates views on the topics and vote on what has been the historical record, or assertion of a record, that the party has pushed.
Sadly, in all of this, we have lost track of one of the main reasons we pull that lever for a given candidate. It's the essence of why we place these men and women in positions of power. At the end of the day, we hope, in the back of our minds, that we have chosen the smartest candidate. Nearly every candidate has gone to an elite school and graduated with high marks. Most of these men have been grooming themselves for this day for years. The true fault in this practice of assumption is that most of these men aren't much smarter than the average Joe. Sure we hear about Clinton's alleged photographic memory and his high IQ, but that memory could have masked some deficiencies. We've heard stories of Bush's low IQ, but many articles have been written to the contrary. How these are believable about this gaffe master, is beyond me, but they say even Einstein was aloof at times. It's a crap shoot when voting this way, because we're making assumptions on intelligence based on strategically rehearsed answers to generally well known questions. Today I read about Romney choosing a man he considered for running mate to play the role of Obama in the rehearsal debate. I assume Obama will be doing the same, although he's a little more seasoned after doing this just four years ago.
So here's my plan. What if we start a third party. A true party of the people, to represent the people. There will be one criteria. Both current Democrats and Republicans may join, as may any other affiliation. This party will not be separated by political beliefs, but by another measure. Men and women of all socioeconomic levels are welcome. PhD level members as well as those who are high school dropouts are welcome also. There may be Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, or any other religion welcome. We do not discriminate in any way. Blacks, Whites, Asians or any other race, creed or color is fully welcome to join. There will be only one prerequisite to join. Measured intelligence.
The average intelligence quotient, based on Stanford-Binet and the Wechsler would be used to judge this. There may be other factors involved, but this would be the basis. Now, the world average on both tests is a grade of 100 (98 in the U.S). One standard deviation put 2/3 of the population between 85-115. The second group is between 70-84 and 116-129. With the addition of these two groups, we include approximately 95% of the world. The latter is considered advanced intelligence, but not high intelligence, or "gifted and talented." These people, while intelligent, would not be welcome into the party. Only those who achieve scores above 130 would be allowed. Now while scores may vary between the two tests, they are generally very close. Obviously, any Members of Mensa would be welcome with open arms.
Now, I know what you're thinking. This is elitist. This is segregation. This is some sort of horrible "supreme race" I'm trying to create. Hear me through. When you want advice on the economy, you don't ask your cousin Sal who is making a pizza or fixing a car. You ask a Nobel prize winning economist or a professor with a wall full of degrees. Just the same, you're not going to ask that economist to fix your brakes. We're not insulting anyone, because all jobs are important in their own way and allow us to continue through time and evolve. What I'm saying is, let's be sure we're getting the smartest people. Completely sure.
Now, some may say "why would I vote for someone in a party, I'm not allowed to be in." Listen carefully, you're not allowed to be in the current two party system's parties either. You may think you are, but it's a box on a questionnaire and you aren't being invited to their ranch for Labor Day. Why wouldn't the average American entrust a group of people, who have selected one person (we would have no primary) to be their mouthpiece? Why wouldn't we want to know that this man or woman will put together a cabinet of geniuses? I know I would feel a lot more comfortable knowing that people who see things in literal and abstract ways are going over our day to day problems and not being lobbied or persuaded by an ideology.
Imagine, if we took the smartest people, from all parties, all nationalities, all religious denominations and we took, men & women, straight and gay, regardless of their belief system and we worked to create a more perfect world with logic. With math and science. With reason that supplants beliefs based on faith alone. We took all the good, from all the best minds and channeled it into a solution for our problems. No lobbyists, no compromises for political gain. None of the bureaucracy we've come to despise. Why wouldn't we trust the smartest people in the room to get it done. It sure isn't getting done with the misfits we've been throwing in the White House the last 50 years.
Some of you might not like this, because you feel embarrassed you may not join. Some of you may be embarrassed you qualify, but you've underachieved in your life. Maybe it's you we need to speak to. Maybe it's the man with the near genius IQ who's been out of work for three years or has been mopping floors or delivering pizza. Maybe it's the kid who can't afford to go to college and has to take care of his family. Maybe it's the person who has been looking for a chance to make a difference. Out of every In this land of ours with over 310 million people, there are only about 7.5 million who fit the bill. A minority for sure, but isn't this the kind of minority, you'd be comfortable taking direction from?
Comments
Post a Comment