Popularity should be no scale for the election of politicians. If it would depend on popularity, Donald Duck and The Muppets would take seats in senate.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It seems that elections today are more popularity than they are substantial issues.
Well, I'm not that popular with the politicians, I have to say.
I will be the first to admit that getting votes and getting an audience are two different things. For example, a politician really can't be elected if he's hated by half the people. A talk show host, however, can be an overwhelming national phenomenon while being hated by half the people.
We live in a society obsessed with public opinion. But leadership has never been about popularity.
Elections, for their part, are typically popularity contests rather than measures of candidates' relative competency or effectiveness. Imagine if scientific truth were determined according to which scientist was most popular. To be successful, scientists would have to be charismatic and attractive - and human knowledge would suffer terribly.
The presidency is more than a popularity contest.
We need an honest politician in charge who doesn't care whether they are re-elected and is prepared to make the unpopular decisions.
Popularity is exhausting. The life of the party almost always winds up in a corner with an overcoat over him.
If we would vote in mass on the more promising ticket, or, if the two are equally bad, would throw out the party that is in, and wait till the next election and then throw out the other party that is in - then, I say, the commercial politician would feel a demand for good government and he would supply it.
Require... electoral votes to be allocated in proportion to the popular votes.