Èlection '08: The good administrator or the ideological comrade?

[HoreTore]

Nono, this isn't about the US election...

Let's say we have a hypothetical election, and you're going to vote for your head of state(president, great leader, reichskanzler, PM, whatever). There are only two candidates, and you have to choose which one.

Candidate #1:

The first one believes in the same things that you do. In fact, you rarely disagree with him at all. Unfortunately, candidate one is also completely incompetent at everything he does. You know he will try to do what you want him to, but you can't be sure if he'll be able to do it.

Candidate #2:

The second candidate on the other hand, is an administrative genius. You know he will get things done, and done well. Unfortunately, you can be sure that you'll disagree with whatever he does. What he tries to do, he will do, but he won't do what you want a president to do. He is your complete opposite when it comes to ideology.


So, who would you vote for?


EDIT: oh bloody hell, I forgot the poll, of course... Could a kind mod who steps by please add a poll with two options(1. ideological comrade, 2. good administrator)?

[Kralizec]

I wouldn't vote, unless I thought that #2 would be sufficiently disastrous to warrant a vote for #1 :shrug:

[Crazed Rabbit]

#1 - why would I want things done quickly if I didn't agree with the policies?

And I'm a believer in non-action being generally better than action by the government anyway.

CR

[Vladimir]

#1 - why would I want things done quickly if I didn't agree with the policies?

And I'm a believer in non-action being generally better than action by the government anyway.

CR

Agree. Inaction is often the best action. Hopefully you have a fairly decentralized system of government to allow for some flexibility.

Why would anyone vote 2? It's like a liberal going: "You know, I hate everything about George Bush but I'd vote for his 3rd term."

Would you let the unexperienced teenager or the convicted pedophile babysit your kid?

[LittleGrizzly]

I suppose it depends on the circumstances, for current day UK i would vote for no.1 but in a dangerous world situation where great leadership would be required i may be tempted to vote no.2, though his idealogical problems may cause the situation to get even worse, so i would probably stick with no.1

[Ironside]

In normal politics I would go with #2. Rather a functional system that needs some fixes, than an incompetent mockery of what I belive in.

Of course if both are so bad that they need to be removed by a coup I rather take the incompetent one...

I like competence what more can I say :juggle2:

[LittleGrizzly]

I suppose it depends on your ideaology but i was just thinking for me no.2 guy could be someone like Hitler, now obviously any bumbling idiot who thinks like me would be the obvious choice for me over hitler, unless i guess we were threatened by something worse than hitler.

[Rhyfelwyr]

In the current UK political situation I'd go for No.2 since there's no noticable ideological difference between the big parties anymore.

If we actually had some real options, I'd go for No.1

[HoreTore]

I suppose it depends on your ideaology but i was just thinking for me no.2 guy could be someone like Hitler, now obviously any bumbling idiot who thinks like me would be the obvious choice for me over hitler, unless i guess we were threatened by something worse than hitler.

Yeah Hitler fits the bill for #2.

Robert Mugabe would be a good example of #1.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Abstain. ~;p
.

[Vladimir]

Robert Mugabe would be a good example of #1.

:laugh4: Are you telling us that he doesn't get things done or that he's your ideological counterpart?

[HoreTore]

:laugh4: Are you telling us that he doesn't get things done or that he's your ideological counterpart?

Well he's utterly incompetent, but because he's seen as a freedom fighter etc, a lot of people still like him...

Take his land reform, for example. A lot of people would agree with the principle. However, the way he went through with it was a complete mess...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What, the intimidation, siezures, putting miners on the best land in Southern Africa? Besides, it did exactly what it was meant to, it kept him in power.

"Bob" is another version of 2. I'd vote one, if he's completely incompetant he won't have any effect at all, ergo nothing will get much worse. He'd be replaced by someone more competant from his own party over here anyway.

[Vladimir]

Well he's utterly incompetent, but because he's seen as a freedom fighter etc, a lot of people still like him...

Take his land reform, for example. A lot of people would agree with the principle. However, the way he went through with it was a complete mess...

That's the issue with #2. It's not merely that one would disagree with him but because one thinks that their political ideology is the best for country and self. Why would you choose #2 if you believed he would utterly ruin your country?

As someone else said though, times of crisis and war are different.

I say this from an American view which believes that government is a necessary evil of sorts. If I was Russian I doubt I'd have the same view.

[Lemur]

It's like a liberal going: "You know, I hate everything about George Bush but I'd vote for his 3rd term."
Who, exactly, has accused George W. Bush of being a good administrator?

[seireikhaan]

I chose #2. I believe that there are a lot of ideologies of gov't that can work with the right administrator, and thus, I'd vote for the person who's far superior.

[Vladimir]

Who, exactly, has accused George W. Bush of being a good administrator?

Relative to the competition I suppose. :shrug: That's why I cringe at the thought of three senators competing for the presidency. There's a body that makes it a point not to be effective administrators.

[HoreTore]

Vladimir:

well, it doesn't have to be a life and death situation where you have to choose people like hitler or mugabe...

Another example of #2 would be like this:

Your version of #2, as a small-state conservative*, would mean that you'd get things like a well functioning welfare state, but also higher taxes.

My version of #2, as a socialist, is that I would get a well-functioning market liberal economy with very low taxes, but I wouldn't get much social security(except private).


*yes, I am assuming a lot here, don't be upset if it's not correct, that's not my point.

[Vladimir]

You're right. It's all relative to the observer. The more extreme the observer, the more important the decision.

I'd argue against the possibility of a "well-run" welfare state but that's a minor issue. :2thumbsup:

[Craterus]

I suppose it depends on your ideaology but i was just thinking for me no.2 guy could be someone like Hitler, now obviously any bumbling idiot who thinks like me would be the obvious choice for me over hitler, unless i guess we were threatened by something worse than hitler.

Sounds more like Trotsky vs. Stalin.

I pick Stalin :beam:

EDIT: Actually, hmm...

[TevashSzat]

Probably #2 here for me since #1 will make such made mistakes that your beliefs will end up being mocked and probably won't be able to remain as a popular one until quite a long time off into the future

[Adrian II]

Sounds more like Trotsky vs. Stalin.

I pick Stalin :beam:

EDIT: Actually, hmm...Too late, comrade. You are objectively a traitor to the cause, and you had better cooperate in your own trial so as not to harm it any further. :policeman:

[HoreTore]

You're right. It's all relative to the observer. The more extreme the observer, the more important the decision.

I'd argue against the possibility of a "well-run" welfare state but that's a minor issue. :2thumbsup:

And I would argue against the possibility of a market-liberal state without extreme poverty and injustice, but hey, that's not what we're talking about here :smash:

[CountArach]

Administration can be learnt with experience - ideas can't be changed anywhere near as easily. Therefore I choose the comrade.

[Vladimir]

Wow look! A dead tie!

[macsen rufus]

Wow look! A dead tie!

Yup, that's what we want - force a coalition so we get the "good guy" in charge to set the right direction, and the "capable admininstrator" as VP to make sure it happens :laugh4:

[Craterus]

Surely candidate #1 would be replaced by a more competent person after a few mistakes.

I don't see any point (complete contradiction of last post) in voting for someone who will effectively and efficiently pass legislation that you completely disagree with.

[LittleGrizzly]

I don't see any point (complete contradiction of last post) in voting for someone who will effectively and efficiently pass legislation that you completely disagree with.

well im guessing even though hes your idealogical opposite he will run the economy well, sort out goverment ineffeciencys and work well with foriegn goverments (assuming thats part of a good administrator)