Warbler said:

NeverarGreat said:

If you have a system which allows every person to vote for the candidate who is most representative of their values, it stands to reason that the person who is elected will (at least appear to) be an average Joe, appearing to conform to the middle of the bell curve in terms of policy opinions, personal taste, intelligence, and charm. These results are skewed when it comes to things like height and professionalism, which many voters favor in their leaders.

Consequently, many leaders are chameleons (figuratively, not literally), able to change their appearance and political opinions to appeal to the majority, and not offend vocal minorities, such as religious people who believe that weather is directly caused by the decisions of a personal deity.

Yeah, I made it work. ;)

you are arguing against a system where we election our leaders. If you have better way, please meantion it. In any case, that is not an argument for staying home on election day.

I'm just pointing out that the system has flaws. I don't see a convincing argument for people to stay home on election day, nor do I think that going the the polls (at least for national elections) has any real effect on the outcome. People will rationalize their decision after the fact anyway, no need for me to induce a guilt trip. Yet I did mention that people do elect leaders who are different than themselves in certain aspects (hair, tallness 'presidentiality'), they just aren't useful aspects for a leader to have. If voters demanded that, instead of BS debates, each candidate undergo a series of ethical trials and tests of knowledge before casting their votes, we would probably have a far better system than the one we have now.