My observation is that it is easier to drive consensus with uninformed voters. They do not have enough facts to counter the leaders’ speeches. OTOH, the informed voters keep squabbling due to multitude of opinions. And experts (the real & honest kind) are never 100% sure, since facts often point in different directions.
Hence, strongmen leaders prefer uninformed sheep for voters, and actively work to keep it that way.
Superfrog over 5 years ago
Having voters well-informed would take all the skill out of politics and we’d be reduced to electing candidates on their merits and policies.
Tra1nman2 Premium Member over 5 years ago
Wow, for a change he’s being honest! That’s a first.
heathcliff2 over 5 years ago
Service or amassing a fortune?
rlaker22j over 5 years ago
Truer words were never spoken
joefearsnothing over 5 years ago
Yeah…one doesn’t go with the other,especially in his case! :o|
NobodyAwesome Premium Member over 5 years ago
My observation is that it is easier to drive consensus with uninformed voters. They do not have enough facts to counter the leaders’ speeches. OTOH, the informed voters keep squabbling due to multitude of opinions. And experts (the real & honest kind) are never 100% sure, since facts often point in different directions.
Hence, strongmen leaders prefer uninformed sheep for voters, and actively work to keep it that way.
fuzzbucket Premium Member over 5 years ago
Too true. We need term limits!
Alberta Oil Premium Member over 5 years ago
Could cut out the voters altogether.. just award the position to the candidate that raises / spends the most money..
Bill The Nuke over 5 years ago
The two are mutually exclusive.
OdaJoseph over 5 years ago
In a dictatorship, I see what the majority would "tolerate’. In a ‘demockracy’, I can evaluate the views of the ‘majority’..