Originally posted by JediLiberator
The whole point is to give power to people who will use it wisely.
But what criteria are you going to employ in your selection? If you go to Iran, then the criterium is "Islamist Zealot". If you look at the neoconservative American Right, then the criterium would probably be "Christian Zealot". And I'll not even go into what it would be in Israel.
What about hippies? Are they responsible citizens? I think not. Priests? Hardly. But I'm pretty sure that most people here disagree with me on at least one of the above.
According to most parts of the world, Bush is harmful to society. According to most parts of the world, he's a blithering idiot as well. Does that mean that we have the right to exclude him from running for office? I don't think so. Why not? Because according to most people in the Bible Belt, Kerry is a menace to America. If we were to exclude dubya from running for Prez, then why shouldn't the Deep South have the right to veto Kerry's campaign? From what authority would such decisions be derived? How would you justify your version of democracy if the majority of the people weren't allowed to vote?