3 ms·
As it should be, if you're not passionate enough to get to the polls and stand in line for a few minutes then you shouldn't have a voice in the election.
by sodafountan 10y ago
As it should be, if you're not passionate enough to get to the polls and stand in line for a few minutes then you shouldn't have a voice in the election.
- M_Grey 10y agoI'm not sure that being ruled by the most passionate is actually that effective. It seems to me that passion and a lack of intelligence seem strongly correlated. It's easy to work someone who can't see the broader picture, up into a frenzy than it is to convince people with complicated and diverse views into that same frenzy. It is frankly, why the Republican party could toe the same line for decades, echo that on radio stations and TV chat shows, and consistently whip their base into a frenzy over a predictable handful of issues. By contrast Democrats had to appeal to a fundamentally more diverse base with a similarly diverse set of issues, less open to sloganeering. There is an essential asymmetry when you value passion over knowledge of the issues, intelligence, and education.
- sodafountan 10y ago"It seems to me that passion and a lack of intelligence seem strongly correlated" This is actually categorically false, see the book Peak by Anders Ericsson for more information on this: https://www.amazon.com/Peak-Secrets-New-Science-Expertise/dp/1531864880 https://www.amazon.com/Peak-Secrets-New-Science-Expertise/dp... people who are passionate are MUCH more intelligent and knowledgeable about issues and it's been proven.