In Freakonomics a research is described in exactly the topic of how money spend is related to the outcome of election.

They found various consequent elections where the same two candidates were up against each other and compared spending. What they found was that it wasn't money that elected the candidate, it was the most popular candidate that attracted the most money.

I can't remember exactly how the research was done, but it seems logical. If you get 80% of the people behind you, you also get 80% of the money givers behind you.

I get very worried when I hear about "values." At one point I thought we were all supposed to be free to have and express our own values without interference from government. It now seems like some people want to elect people with their own particular "values" so that those "values" can be forced on the rest of us.

The majority thought slavery was acceptable and valued the economic success that it fostered.

The majority thought if was ok to openly treat blacks as a lower class of humans - in my lifetime!

The majority did not consider women qualified to vote.

The majority thought it was ok for people to get injured or killed at work and then for their widows and orphans to be impoverished.

It took leadership and someone to actually stand up to the "values" of the majority to overcome these ideas.

I don't want leaders that share my values or anyone else's. I want leaders that will put the good of the country above their personal values and above the values of the majority if that's what it takes. I really don't think values have anything to do with it.

Okay, but how do you define "good of the country" without invoking at least some semblance of "values" or "principles?"

What Rick Santorum defines as the good of the country is very different from what Barak Obama defines as the good of the country. I'm not sure there's an objective, value-free way to arrive at a definition of what's good for the country.

That's probably true. But there are plenty of situations where you want a leader who is not afraid to go against his personal values to do what is necessary. I'm afraid that the people we get now are so afraid to tick off their political base to do what needs to be done. Obama would not throw water on a fire if it pissed off the unions. The like of Santorum would not do the same if it offended christians. That's sad. There is plenty to do that, while we might not agree on, SOMETHING needs to be done about.

"Democracy" in action...

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... le-defense

The system I've always found to be the most beneficial to and country is Meritocracy, which is defined by people rising to power based on merit, experience and level of education.

The problem we have today is that politics is a popularity contest that heavily rigged for those with deeper pockets. If you eliminated all forms of campaign financing and lobbyists, financed campaigns strictly from a fixed pool of tax dollars and required a minimum level of credentials, we'd get fairly close to a Meritocracy.

If anyone doesn't believe that this works, Meritocracy is very successful in the scientific community, in Open Source software and many other areas. Even if you just curtailed lobbyists and campaign financing, you'd get a lot closer to something that's workable.

The other side of the coin is that I would argue that the 99% really don't know what they are voting for, mainly because they are not educated to make an informed decision. Having a well rounded education, rather than focusing just on passing tests, would help this country tremendously. If you don't believe me, then ask the average American on what continent random countries are located, and you'll find very poor answers.

As a 25+ year veteran of the scientific community, I'd hate to have scientists as leaders. Some would be good but in general they make poor leaders in my opinion. Just because they are good at their science does not mean they know how to lead.

On the other hand, business people make great leaders! People who have an MBA degree like Rick San-...oh wait...never mind.

Dumb, uneducated people can actually be pretty good leaders if they listen to smart people around them. We've had a few presidents that fit that description...

I actually think the military is very good at producing leaders, and not for the reason I just stated. But Americans, perhaps rightfully so, are reluctant to elect military leaders to high political offices.

Colin Powell would have had my vote!

I don't think you can point to one category and say that it makes a good leader.

Perhaps the military would produce the most per capita, but I don't think military service automatically makes on a good leader.

Someone who knows how to listen and knows good advice when there hear it, is what I would look for.

Awesome. Lets hear the names...

Well there's... um....

Amen to this. It's been a running joke for me that people who go into science generally do so because they deal better with data than people. Then they become managers....