Elections and campaigns are the core excitement in a democracy and much like jurors in the justice system voters often get it right. But also like jurors they are frightening because important decisions are often made by manipulated minds.

There is no denying that the main problem with elections is voters. We can blame John McCain for smearing Obama, or the Swift Boat Veterans for lying about Kerry, or complain about corny insincere appeals to prejudice or greed all we want. The basic fact is, however, that without voters' disinterest in public life and their resultant susceptibility to crass, untrue appeals -- elections would be far more wonderful than they are.

You can never be sure if the results would be different if voters had a brain. Right now, for instance, there would be a real debate about the different types of administrations we could expect from McCain & Obama -- if voters read newspapers or discussed and debated politics. But the outcome is not the point. The whole enterprise would just seem much more legitimate and inspire much more confidence if voters actually knew what they were doing.

I am particularly annoyed that voters form firm opinions about a candidate's general presentation and immediately shake their heads as though betrayed when they learn of the latest manufactured smear. They believe the smear even as they abhor smears because they don't pay enough attention to learn the difference between a smear and a revelation.

I wonder how many voters right now think John Edwards has merely been smeared about his affair even though he has admitted it. The necessary distinctions between realities and made up campaign claims cannot be drawn by people who cynically say they despise politics and then fall victim to its misrepresentations.

I am not the first nor will I be the last by a longshot to notice that voters are ineffective at their jobs. But what is the solution? No reasonable person would support a minimum competency test for voting. But as long as voters remain incompetent, candidates will continue to play upon their incompetency.

If we did not know so before this year, we certainly know now that there are no candidates willing to talk to voters like adults all the time. Obama and McCain were both seen as exceptionally capable of doing so this year. It lasted about five minutes.

Obama, in particular, would like to avoid inanities, since they are harmful to him. On many occasions he has spoken to voters like adults and sometimes it has worked beautifully. But as I write this, I am sure he is making his final decision on a running mate based on how vicious he will be in countering McCain's smears. Let the mud wrestling continue.

But none of us should be surprised that politicians don't speak to voters like adults. Politically speaking, we are not adults.

"But as I write this, I am sure he is making his final decision on a running mate based on how vicious he will be in countering McCain's smears."

He? Obama's most effective attack dog would not be a man. I argued this case in June. Bill Maher got it right in the Larry King interview.

"Politically speaking, we are not adults."

Winston Churchill said: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter". Churchill was speaking of the average voter. Now consider that half of all voters are below average.

Even in the worst-case scenario, a McCain victory, life will go on. The Republican excesses will accumulate and sooner or later there will be a reckoning. Catastrophically bad regimes never endure.

John,

This is a very sad, but all too true, statement. I am ready to admit my own shortcomings. I am poorly informed. I am a part of the very problem. I have at my fingertips the resources to educate myself on the issues I find most compelling. But I don't devote nearly enough time to it. And I consider myself to be of above-average intelligence. This may or may not be true, but I like to think it is.

I watched the Obama and McCain interviews by Pastor Rick Warren Saturday evening and later watched the pundits declare McCain the big winner of the night and wondered if we could possibly have been watching the same event. While Obama did appear hesitant before answering questions, I appreciated the thoughtful responses he gave. McCain seemed to be jumping to the simplest answers.

In particular, I greatly appreciated Obama explaining that pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion and that we need to focus on providing other solutions to unwanted pregnancies that would allow these mothers to make a different choice. I appreciated his acknowledgement that most women faced with this decision struggle mightily before choosing abortion. It was a very thoughtful response and in line with my feelings on the subject. But when McCain was asked when a fetus acquires human rights, his response was a very simple "at the moment of conception." It might be a popular response to a certain part of the population, but it doesn't take into account the real-life problems encountered by women in this situation. It's this kind of simplistic thinking that disturbs me on the abortion issue. Nobody is advocating for abortion here. Yet the pro-lifers make that the message. And John McCain is seen as winning this question.

It's the same thing that happened on the evil question. Obama gives a thoughtful response that should appeal to anyone who really thinks about all the real and imagined evils in the world. McCain says "Defeat it" and he has won the question.

What is going on here? Why don't Americans want a president who is willing to consider issues from every side and make thoughtful and informed decisions? Why do we insist on having everything boiled down to the simplest sound-bite? Have we really given up on intellectualism?

And please don't get me started on McCain's attack ads.

I am now dreading the upcoming debates. I will agree with most of what Obama has to say. I will throw a shoe at the TV whenever McCain spits out some thoughtless, simplistic answer to an important question (I have plenty of shoes). McCain will be declared the winner because he gave decisive responses while Obama seemed professorial and hesitant. It's not going to be pretty.

BrownApril and John:

I couldn't agree more. The even sadder fact seems to be that so many of these uninformed voters seem to be the most active, or at least vocal. The Religious Right for example, they're not extremely large in numbers but they've come to represent the GOP and influence it's decision making process.

While Obama did appear hesitant before answering questions, I appreciated the thoughtful responses he gave. McCain seemed to be jumping to the simplest answers.

April, I think this is really important as well. It always bugs me when people complain about Obama stumbling, and they see it as a weakness. I've always viewed it as him collecting his thoughts so he can give a reasoned, nuanced answer; rather than highlight reel of absolutes: "defeat it." But, people eat that shit up. I don't get it.

Anyhoo, great conversation.

I'm looking forward to the debates, and I believe Obama will do a better job (regardless of what the media declares afterwards). I too felt his Saddleback performance was superior to McCains. His responses were thoughtful and well articulated. McCain offered political soundbites .

John

Your posts continue to shine and your logic is impeccable. I too am disgusted at voters in general. The pundits feed into this mantra by telling us what works instead of what should be the adult strategy. They make a living proving that we are sheeple that need sheep dogs and masters.

John, relax. Most elections are probably rigged anyway, just like pro wrestling.

Good comments all.

Just to clarify, my problem is not with the the intelligence of voters. Almost all voters have the capacity for citizenship. What leads to susceptibility to manipulation is an anti-politics cynicism which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

For example, if I believe that all politicians lie and that all news stories are false, I will logically ignore both. If I believe that all analysis by think tanks is mere pap and that there are no sources of information for the average voter that can be trusted, I will not seek out any information at all. Besides cynicism, this result may also be the result of laziness or disinterest in government or politics.

Once a voter fails at this initial level of citizenship, it is impossible to recover. A rumor, an attack ad, your stupid uncle's rantings, become every bit as legitimate to you as serious analysis or relatively trustworthy sources of information.

This year Obama has been the victim of voter incompetence. It is remarkable that he is still standing. For example, one of out of eight believe he is Muslim even though no reputable source on the right or left says so.

Finally, campaigns have a moral decision to make -- do we exploit this voter incompetence through perpetuation of myth -- or do we stick to the issues and follow some moral compass when we criticize our opponents. This is not a particularly difficult question for consultants hired for the single purpose of winning, and who probably didn't receive A's in virtue in school.

"This year Obama has been the victim of voter incompetence. It is remarkable that he is still standing."

One key element that you have left out of your analysis is the omnipresent role of the media in presidential politics. Barack Obama came out of nowhere to defeat Hillary Clinton mostly because of very favorable media reviews. The media had already tilled the soil (coverage of Obama's 2004 convention speech) before your efforts in Iowa planted the seeds.

So I don't think that Obama would be standing at all if it weren't for the media. This is no criticism of Obama. It is praise for the media. But as I have said again and again in the Fray, the media herd is fickle. As you pointed out in an earlier thread, Obama is losing his focus. This has not gone unnoticed by the media herd. If the scent of blood becomes too strong, it won't be the voters who are to blame for the consequences.

It's all too easy to list reasons why voters make bad decisions.

As for solutions, I can only think of one: universal access to a vibrant public education system (and enough economic security and opportunity to make education feasible and desirable for all). An abundance of knowledge very generally leads to nuanced and probing thinking. Of course you can't make her/him drink, but providing the horse with water is a good place to start.

Pwoxby;

I guess it's a matter of perspective, but in my mind there is a huge difference between the media reporting an existing phenomenon and unreliable sources hoodwinking people.

As you know and point out, I was in Iowa and experienced first hand what catapulted Obama. Although he had received great reviews from the press from his 2004 speech and was widely reported to be 'the new thing," that hardly explains why he took off.

He took off because he appealed to a great swath of very informed voters who were thirsting for a person with his skills and his ability to project America in a more positive light in the world. His opposition to the war in advance, and his writings also created a stir. But then it was word of mouth and enthusiasm.

I met hundreds and hundreds of people in Iowa who had been turned off to politics but had heard a speech or listened to their kids or read his books, who were simply charged up.

I don't think the positives for Obama are comparable at all to the incompetent voter syndrome I am talking about that has repeatedly set back his message. The problem arises when voters are manipulated by false information and cannot discern a difference between trustworthy and untrustworthy sources.

Old fashioned fame and poplularity even when trumpeted in the press is a different phenomenon and not a problem.

Olive, Ouzo & Figgy;

Couldn't agree with you more, with one caveat.

While education is vital to citizenship, even those without an education can be informed citizens. It is often attitude, rather than aptitude that results in incompetent voting.

j.a. --

"...even those without an education can be informed citizens."

Agreed.

"It is often attitude, rather than aptitude that results in incompetent voting."

True, but where does the bad attitude come from? If we're talking to some extent about cynicism, there's plenty of reason for that, but I don't see how it follows that engagement is pointless. I don't know -- that one's very confusing to me. I would reason that this line of thinking must come from ignorance about the political process except that I've known many people who prove this false. I meet "it doesn't matter" with "imagine if all public offices were held by Republicans," which I think should be the capper, but...

...I'm wandering off point here, but I have a way of working this pet peeve into discussions...

"True, but where does the bad attitude come from?"

Al Gore addresses this question in his book, "The Assault on Reason". First, let me highly recommend this book. It is not the fluff "moan and complain" work that I had feared it might be.

Gore points to neurological research which shows why all people are highly receptive to certain messages. Simple messages of fear and distrust are processed differently by the brain than more complex messages. Propangandists have long exploited this effect without understanding its neurological basis..

The Bush administration exploited the effect in the wake of the 9/11 attacks to stampede us into an unnecessary war. John McCain and his campaign are exploiting the effect to marginalize Barack Obama personally.

The citizenry is not to blame for this. And the brutal truth that McCain knows all too well is that he has to run a dirty campaign to have any chance of winning. So the mainstream media are our only line of defense against McCain's tactics. The MSM did a credible job of criticizing the excesses of Hillary Clinton's campaign in the primaries. We'll see after the conventions if they will repeat that vigilance.

I'm mangling the Brecht quote, but this is a common weakness of the left. Some lefties think that their sparkling rhetoric and logic should win the day, and when it doesn't they get angry. In this country, the anger doesn't amount to more than pouting. In other places, it's meant people get loaded into box cars and sent to labor camps.

I'm not sold on Obama, but he's a bog boy who made it out of Chicago politics. His organization was what beat Hillary (organizations win elections), and he has an excellent shot at McCain.