Roth says the Wesleyan board is supportive; maybe they are just lucky.
Once you start electing other jobs, like judges or plumbers, then you get whoever you elected, rather than necessarily a person able to do the job.
In other words, getting elected is a specific skill set. Doing the job is a different skill set. In most fields those skill sets do not overlap.
Even in govt the overlap is marginal. Which is why some elected officials are pretty useless at actually "governing".
To my American friends all I can say is "you voted for this".
The problems are two fold. The first is vetoing of bad ideas. No leader is right 100% of the time, and when they are wrong, someone must have the power to veto. There must be some way for reason to triumph over power, and a leader who chooses to be responsible is capable of deferring to expertise.
The second is succession. A good leader today may be succeeded by rotten leader tomorrow, but both have the same legitimacy, because the legitimacy comes from power alone and not reason.
> effective, competent, just, or free of corruption.
These things are a result of culture, not a result of the government itself. The government influences culture, but they are first and foremost functions of culture, specifically a culture of tolerating speaking truth to power, dissent, critical thinking, tolerance, and solidarity.
Which makes a lot of sense if you say the same thing about Christianity. Christian isn't something you are, Christianity is something you do.
Both have hallowed dogmas that are poorly understood by their followers, the constitution and the bible/teachings of jesus respectively.
What method do you prefer?Trust in the market and chose the one with the highest price, or, choose the one recommended by most, aka the popular choice or the elected?
Even avoiding things like gerrymandering, are voters choosing politicians or are politicians choosing voters?
Do candidates send out emails asking for you to talk to your friends, or do they ask for more money? Do candidates have principled stances founded on an underlying philosophy, or do they focus on issues that are emotional in order to drum up support.
I think "why do candidates ask for money" is a very very important question to ruminate on as is "why are we talking about abortion and race rather than health and housing"?
Before a general election there is a primary and before a primary there is fundraising. In order to succeed in a primary, in general, you have to do OK at fundraising. Fundraising is not dissimilar to an election and it happens before primaries. This means money votes first, which is why it feels like we have a "democracy" approved of by those with money, we literally do.
Money votes first.
"popularity" does not imply competence. Popularity is easily gamed and bought. Given that unlimited business money can be spent on elections, it's mostly bought.
I'm not sure what you mean by market, or highest price, but I assume you mean the above?
The opposite of elections is appointment. Based on competence. So, for example, in my company I want job x done well, so I appoint a person based on their ability to do x.
Of course this assumes I want x done well. If I'm elected, and I want x done badly, then I can appoint someone based on other factors, like ideology or loyalty etc.