By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - How should Political Party leaders be elected?

Joelcool7 on 13 November 2011
Kasz216 said:
Joelcool7 said:
Kasz216 said:
Joelcool7 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

Get together everyone who is qualified to be a leader, and pick the one who wants to be leader least.... because he's probably the one that cares the most, rather then just wanting to get off by being the boss of people.

A good leader is one who hates being a leader yet still gets chosen for it.

Isn't that just a myth?


Of course it is, because you can't lead a country if you don't want to do so. Somebody with no ambition to be leader would make a terrible one. Also those who actually want to lead pay more attention to the issues they invest more time and effort into winning and as such they are more qualified to run a country then someone who doesn't actually have any want to be a leader.

How many times have people freaked out when their leaders call it quits. If you elect someone who does not want to lead , they will only remain in the position a short period of time resigning early. If they don't resign they will leave their policies and decisions to the people who actually have a vested interest in them.

You need someone who is ambitious somebody who wants to lead and has the character and ambition to do so. Can you name a single leader of any country who did not want to lead? Now is that leader as good as even 10% of those who actually wanted to lead? Its easy to point out leaders who had ambition but were pretty bad, but its not as easy to find leaders who had no ambition to lead yet not only led but were superior to those who actually wanted to lead?

You seem to be missing the point.

There are people who don't want to lead, but feel compelled to lead because the people who are leading are complete jackasses.

You see people like that step up all the time when the people leading are acting like complete jackasses.

 

All those you see step up want to lead. If they didn't they would see no reason to step up. They want to bring about change and to impact the world around them. They have ambitions and a view of how the country should run and how they could do a better job then the current leader. Either way you look at it, they want the job.

Untrue.  Most politicians want to lead because they want to be someones boss.

Time and time again it's shown that when 99% of politicians have the choice between getting elected and getting their policys done they will choose getting reelected every time.

They don't want to change the world to put in things that they think will run it better.   They just want to change the world.



I'd note the first American President.  George Washington.   George Washington did not want to president.  The war had left him exhausted, weak and wanting nothing more but to enjoy his retirement.  However, he was essentially forced to be president as he was seen as by far the consensus choice, and he sacrificed to become president.

A good leader realizes that being head of state ISN'T a fun job, they don't look at it excitidly, anyone who sees the before and after pictures of US presidents should be able to figure this out.  Being president is a sacrifice.  Or at least being a good president is.


Most who enter politics essentially do so before they even have a set ideology... because there are TONS of landfalls that can kill a candidate before he even gets a chance to run a campaign.

That's why most of the time, when you see unconventional candidates, they lose.

They weren't expecting to be a politician since way back in highschool before their political belifs solidfied.


Well that point is funny, if your not re-elected your not going to be able to support your policies or make any drastic changes. Without the support of voters and your party you are in affective as a leader. In fact say you pass a policy that your party itself is against, even if your Government has a majority it still might shoot you down. You could end up being tossed from your position in a non-confidence vote and say you pass the law the next President will simply revert the law back undoing everything you tried to accomplish.

Unfortunetly people seem to have this grand idea that the President or Prime Minister can actually do as they please, that they can change the laws and that they can fix a system without the support of the people or their fellow politicians. I am sorry but if you do not have voter support your ability to govern or make any good changes is completely null and void.

Example Prime Minister Stephen Harper is Pro-Life and against gay marriage, but he's not stupid he knows that even if he gets his whole parties support (Which isn't likely) and changed the law it would be changed back as soon as he loses the next election which he would.As for your statement about changing the world, you honestly think someone dedicates their whole live to public service puts up with countless angry voters. The hate mail the negative media the attack ads and runs for office again and again until they finally make it to President/Prime Minister you actually think that they don't want to positively change the world?

Yes because every man who dedicates their lives to politics wants to go down in history as negatively changing the world. I'd say almost every politician in the free first world enters politics with dreams and aspirations on how they will make the world a better place. How they will impact it and change it. These people aren't sacraficing almost everything facing unimaginable ods and garnering the support of millions of people with bad intentions.

I'd agree leading the free world is not a fun job. It is a stressful job especially when the whole country and the whole free world is counting on you to always make the right decision. Then people such as yourself critisize them calling their integrity and character into question if they do not meet your expectations.

In fact even being school President and Computer Commity President, even that was a hard job. Your accountable to your voters as well as everyone else. I can only imagine how much harder it would be to be a Premier/Governor let alone President/Prime Minister.

I don't think many politicians in North America or Western Europe enter politics with anything but the best of intentions. Whether those intentions end up causing damage is a different story. But they all have intent on changing the world and the majority for the better. Also General Goerge Washington wanted to lead, he may not have aimed at being President initially but he was a born leader who craved authority and followers.

Again not an example of someone not wanting to lead. In fact someone who wants power and is smart enough or capable of being President is capable of gaining much more power in the private sector.



-JC7

"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer

 

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 13 November 2011
Joelcool7 said:
Kasz216 said:
Joelcool7 said:
Kasz216 said:
Joelcool7 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

Get together everyone who is qualified to be a leader, and pick the one who wants to be leader least.... because he's probably the one that cares the most, rather then just wanting to get off by being the boss of people.

A good leader is one who hates being a leader yet still gets chosen for it.

Isn't that just a myth?


Of course it is, because you can't lead a country if you don't want to do so. Somebody with no ambition to be leader would make a terrible one. Also those who actually want to lead pay more attention to the issues they invest more time and effort into winning and as such they are more qualified to run a country then someone who doesn't actually have any want to be a leader.

How many times have people freaked out when their leaders call it quits. If you elect someone who does not want to lead , they will only remain in the position a short period of time resigning early. If they don't resign they will leave their policies and decisions to the people who actually have a vested interest in them.

You need someone who is ambitious somebody who wants to lead and has the character and ambition to do so. Can you name a single leader of any country who did not want to lead? Now is that leader as good as even 10% of those who actually wanted to lead? Its easy to point out leaders who had ambition but were pretty bad, but its not as easy to find leaders who had no ambition to lead yet not only led but were superior to those who actually wanted to lead?

You seem to be missing the point.

There are people who don't want to lead, but feel compelled to lead because the people who are leading are complete jackasses.

You see people like that step up all the time when the people leading are acting like complete jackasses.

 

All those you see step up want to lead. If they didn't they would see no reason to step up. They want to bring about change and to impact the world around them. They have ambitions and a view of how the country should run and how they could do a better job then the current leader. Either way you look at it, they want the job.

Untrue.  Most politicians want to lead because they want to be someones boss.

Time and time again it's shown that when 99% of politicians have the choice between getting elected and getting their policys done they will choose getting reelected every time.

They don't want to change the world to put in things that they think will run it better.   They just want to change the world.



I'd note the first American President.  George Washington.   George Washington did not want to president.  The war had left him exhausted, weak and wanting nothing more but to enjoy his retirement.  However, he was essentially forced to be president as he was seen as by far the consensus choice, and he sacrificed to become president.

A good leader realizes that being head of state ISN'T a fun job, they don't look at it excitidly, anyone who sees the before and after pictures of US presidents should be able to figure this out.  Being president is a sacrifice.  Or at least being a good president is.


Most who enter politics essentially do so before they even have a set ideology... because there are TONS of landfalls that can kill a candidate before he even gets a chance to run a campaign.

That's why most of the time, when you see unconventional candidates, they lose.

They weren't expecting to be a politician since way back in highschool before their political belifs solidfied.


Well that point is funny, if your not re-elected your not going to be able to support your policies or make any drastic changes. Without the support of voters and your party you are in affective as a leader. In fact say you pass a policy that your party itself is against, even if your Government has a majority it still might shoot you down. You could end up being tossed from your position in a non-confidence vote and say you pass the law the next President will simply revert the law back undoing everything you tried to accomplish.

Unfortunetly people seem to have this grand idea that the President or Prime Minister can actually do as they please, that they can change the laws and that they can fix a system without the support of the people or their fellow politicians. I am sorry but if you do not have voter support your ability to govern or make any good changes is completely null and void.

Example Prime Minister Stephen Harper is Pro-Life and against gay marriage, but he's not stupid he knows that even if he gets his whole parties support (Which isn't likely) and changed the law it would be changed back as soon as he loses the next election which he would.As for your statement about changing the world, you honestly think someone dedicates their whole live to public service puts up with countless angry voters. The hate mail the negative media the attack ads and runs for office again and again until they finally make it to President/Prime Minister you actually think that they don't want to positively change the world?

Yes because every man who dedicates their lives to politics wants to go down in history as negatively changing the world. I'd say almost every politician in the free first world enters politics with dreams and aspirations on how they will make the world a better place. How they will impact it and change it. These people aren't sacraficing almost everything facing unimaginable ods and garnering the support of millions of people with bad intentions.

I'd agree leading the free world is not a fun job. It is a stressful job especially when the whole country and the whole free world is counting on you to always make the right decision. Then people such as yourself critisize them calling their integrity and character into question if they do not meet your expectations.

In fact even being school President and Computer Commity President, even that was a hard job. Your accountable to your voters as well as everyone else. I can only imagine how much harder it would be to be a Premier/Governor let alone President/Prime Minister.

I don't think many politicians in North America or Western Europe enter politics with anything but the best of intentions. Whether those intentions end up causing damage is a different story. But they all have intent on changing the world and the majority for the better. Also General Goerge Washington wanted to lead, he may not have aimed at being President initially but he was a born leader who craved authority and followers.

Again not an example of someone not wanting to lead. In fact someone who wants power and is smart enough or capable of being President is capable of gaining much more power in the private sector.

Polcies once inacted are rarely repealed.

For example, if Obama loses to a republican, it will largely because he wasted time on an unpopular healthcare bill while the economy was faltering.

The Bill will still most likely preservere.

Washington had the chance to be KING and he turned it down... screw president.  The point was he didn't want to be a world leader, he only became one because he needed to be, much like the old roman figure Cincinnatus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus#Dictator

Actually, most indications as to why George Washington joined the military was that he wanted to make a name for himself and "honor in battle" and all that which was so big with nobles of the time.  It's not like he was a career officer... he routinly quit the army.

I actually think he was a virginia senator when he was made US Resistannce.

When he did... he accepted soley because he saw it as his duty. 

When asked to be President he refused.  He stated that he had already done his duty by leading the troops in the war, and only recanted when he was convinced the country couldn't find another leader who everyone would support.

When a revolt seemed likely against congress, who refused to pay the soldiers, and a plot was hatched to make Washington King, which would of succeeded, because the vast majority of the army was behind it... it again was Washington who went in and told them he didn't want to be king.

Give most polticians the option to be supreme king, I'd bet they'd jump at it.