Should the American electorate consider competence over ideology in the next presidential election?

Question

Shouldn't the voters consider the most competent candidate over the candidate that most follows the party line? Isn't it time to end the partisan control of federal agencies?
With all the "broken" federal agencies, shouldn't the next president be considering removing the thick layer of political appointees from the upper ranks of federal agencies and replace them with merit based appointments?
All the upper tier candidates in both parties having been debating ideology, who's the most liberal and who's the most conservative. None are talking about who is the most competent. None are discussing how they will fix our broken system of partisan government.
Does America simply want to elect the most conservative or the most liberal candidate? Or, do we want the most competent candidate regardless of ideology?

Answer 1

No

Answer 2

What makes you think competence and firm ideology have to be mutually exclusive? Sometimes partisanship has its advantages.
Overall, the competence of a politician measures only their effectiveness as a leader when pushing through an agenda; ideology may or may not have much relevance. Effectiveness does not necessarily mean "goodness." (Hitler and Napolean would have been considered "effective" in their time, even though they were also considered "evil.")

However, it would make for a fresh start for both parties to stop pandering to their bases (along with the media to quit egging them on) and discuss the issues without the tired old rhetoric in order to engage the rest of the unaffiliated public to take the election process more seriously.

Answer 3

I'm for removing all the Electoral Vote and go with count the votes and let the best man or woman that gets the most votes, win the election.. If we had of had that in 2000. we wouldn't be over fighting a war that we will never win and a war built on nothing put pure lies plus Daddy and Oil.
Bush didn't win the popular vote and it was rigged all the way and it is crying shame to stick with something that has caused America so many troop lives and so many innocent Iraq dead. We would have never seen a party that ruined our reputation , morals and dishonest Administration.

Answer 4

We continuously have a honest election. We had one in 2000. There are continuously people who attempt to cheat, like in any contest. Democrats income a great deal by the obstacles of the gadget that makes it perplexing to perceive human beings balloting extra beneficial than as quickly as, non electorate balloting, and balloting by lifeless human beings. using fact of this they oppose the voter identity card. The appropriate courtroom stepped in to provide up a fraudulent vote recount. President Bush gained Florida. He could have gained it by a miles better margin if the liberal biased media had no longer suggested as Florida in improve for Gore, inflicting many could be Bush electorate interior the better portion of Florida (that's heavily republican) to instruct around and not vote. The media knew what they have been doing. besides the shown fact that it did no longer paintings. Now all liberals have left is their seething hate.

Answer 5

Due to the fact that I have no political affiliation, I always vote based on the competency of the candidate, Unfortunately, in my opinion, lately it really hasn't been a decision, based on who is the most competent, rather I have voted on who I think would do the least harm to America and her citizens. Hopefully this election will bring about much needed change in the political arena. Whether the winner is Republican or Democratic, I don't care, as long as they work to bring our country back to where in belongs, as a world leader.

Answer 6

Sadly, those we elect into office are a reflection of what is most important to us. In a country where there has been a dearth of competence among the electorate with reference to their decision making abilities and an abundance in ideological fervor, it only stands to reason that candidates will be elected based on how strongly they identify with a particular ideological disposition, and not on how efficiently they can do their job. That is why we have an incompetent boob like Bush in office, and it is the same reason why we are so complacent when he elects unqualified men and women into seminal cabinet positions.

The United States, and its historical successes, have been the byproduct of a confluence of some extremely fortunate circumstances. As a result of all this undeserved success, the emphasis on individual merit isn’t as highly as emphasized as in other countries where greatness came about as the result of talent and diligence. I fear it is only after a dramatic breakdown in our political, economic and social fabric, that our nation’s citizens will choose candidates based on their track record and not on their party loyalty.

Answer 7

You do realise more people voted for American Idol than the President right?

It seems to me that a signifcant portion of Americans just follow the herd. Ideaology of "Their Party" is all they know or care about.

Probably that MTV genereration, Gen X thing. They vote for the pretty one or the funny one or the one with the best smile. You know the things that really don't matter.

I am HOPEING this election will be different, but judging from some of the questions at that CNN/UTUBE debate I am starting to lose confidence.

Answer 8

Absolutely. That's why I am voting for Fred Thompson.

Here's one of his latest posts. I think he makes perfect sense.

Economist Larry Kudlow calls today’s American economy, “the greatest story never told.” If you’re generally predisposed to not support tax cuts and economic growth, you’re probably satisfied that the U.S. economy isn’t bragged on more. But you’d also be out of step with Americans traditional optimism, and out of step with reality, too.

The economic reality I’m talking about, and about which I’ve written on numerous occasions, is how well our country is doing economically thanks to the hard work of the American people, the innovation and competition our free market encourages, as well as the Bush tax cuts that helped spur 5½ years of economic growth.

Lower tax rates have increased economic growth to such a degree that we have been breaking tax-revenue records.

Since the spring of 2003, the economy has had average growth of over 3%, 8.2 million jobs have been created, and the inflation rate has stayed low. The current unemployment rate, 4.6%, is a full percentage point below what it averaged during the 1990s, and there have been 47 consecutive months (almost four years) of job growth. In the last three years, workers’ salaries have risen by $1.2 trillion, or $8,000 per worker, and consumer confidence recently reached its highest level in almost six years.

People have pointed out that journalists were trumpeting economic statistics during the Clinton administration that were not as good as those we have now, hence the “greatest story never told.” I think they want to play down how well we’ve done with lower tax rates, because it interferes with the ability of their friends in Congress who believe that a virtuous society is one that divides the economic pie, taking more out of taxpayer pockets and letting government do more with those dollars. To them, growing the pie means taxing the people more, which then gives the government more money to transfer to others. But conservatives know better. The economy can only really grow when you let people keep more of what they earn.

No matter how you slice this story, this economic record is one we should be proud of. But America should not rest on these accomplishments, or abandon fiscal restraint and other commonsense principles like fighting inflation and keeping regulation to a minimum. Our economy looks great right now, but a rosy outlook isn’t going to pay the bills or ensure a strong economy.

We need to make sure that America remains the most innovative economy in the world and the best place to invest, start a business, and create jobs.

Answer 9

I have not seen much in the way of competence in any of the candidates with a chance of winning, so I guess not.

Answer 10

No, nor should we select for ideology without competence. Well, that should be obvious to everyone by now.

Answer 11

Americans should always consider competence in choosing a leader. Unfortunately, in the case of Dubya, they chose someone whom they'd like to have a beer with. The last 7 years have been the cost of making a decision on such shallow criteria.