alt Hacker News > and should never have been allowed to occupy a position of authority. He has some charming qualities
I personally prefer this form of government over other popular choices. But ignoring this aspect is exactly what leads to unqualified people being elected to office.
Replies
Campaigns, for sure, are more marketing than discourse. Their infinitesimal silver lining is they serve as a veneer of social proof, their outcomes represent (to some) a form of legitimacy.
From monarchs to pure direct democracy, decisions have to be made. But how?
I see "government" as a kind of consensus algorithm. Policy work, adjudicating, record keeping, legislating, appropriations, etc. It's all just one big data processing machine, trying to discern signal from noise (information), hopefully learning stuff (knowledge), and occasionally acting.
For all our history, we've experimented with strategies for reducing transaction costs. Building trust, predictability, and stability.
How do you think we've done so far?
IMHO: Government, and especially bureaucracy, ain't great. But the alternative of no government isn't acceptable.
> This is quite the contradiction in a democracy.
Is it?
I get that being charming and literally convincing voters it a prerequisite for the job. However the idea that even despite having those qualities there are parts of his character that should disqualify him as a candidate seem equally plausible.
Charles Manson was very charming, but he should still not hold office.
Similarly, Obama or Mamdani being charming is not what gained them interest in progressive circles.