Is the reason people vote for unqualified politicians, because of personal attacks and "hot button" issues?

Someone on YA posted a link to a video I watched, and in that video, the researcher/marketer/strategist states that MOST people vote 80% with emotion, and only 20% with logic.

Truly qualified candidates are becoming increasingly rare. Typically they don't want to be drowned in a sea of negative campaigning and personal attacks so they just stay clear of the whole process.

The biggest problem with the electoral system is that too many uninformed people vote. The go in and don't know what any of the candidates stand for but they recognize a name, for good or bad, and vote for that person. People think that voter turnout is too low. I think that it is too high. If you are going to vote, at least take the time to learn about the candidates, and not from campaign ads but by looking at what they have done. For example, you can look at Hillary Clinton's or John McCain's voting record in the Senate, and not just on the major "hot button" issues. You can see what bills they have supported and which ones they have fought against. Remember candidates are like consumer products and their ads are nothing more than commercials. Obama attacking Romney in a campaign ad is no different than Toyota attacking Ford in a commercial. If you want to know about the candidates you have to do the research yourself and look at facts not sound bites and editorials.

I most certainly see the logic of what you say. I also see the logic of people who say they do not care why the dog attacked them or their dog. We can analyze this until hell freezes over, but the crux of the matter is any sort of unprovoked offensive (not defensive) aggression, territorial or protective behavior in public is not acceptable. Of course the law says dogs can't run loose, but we all know they do and that is bad owners & not necessarily bad dogs. The problem is when both the owner & the dog are bad. In my eyes, if the dog is loose in the street and it thinks my dog & I are invading his territory, well, that dog has a serious issue as it has a screw loose when my dog and I are not doing anything. If the same dog nails you when you climb into the owner's back yard or you try to attack the owner, well that is another situation entirely and I do not fault the dog. I agree to some extent it is not necessarily an "unstable dog w/ a bad temperament", but it is a dog whose concept of territory is inappropriate, just like if I call the police to arrest you for trespassing in my yard when you are on my neighbor's yard. Dogs, particularly in urban & suburban settings, need to be able to clearly define what is their territory & that the whole world does not belong to them & the vast majority of them are able to do this and correctly perceive what a threat is and isn't. That ability is highly key when training protection dogs. The dogs that can't do this are dangerous, very dangerous! Many of them can be helped w/ appropriate training as all they are doing is inappropriate resource guarding, but the people that have not bothered to train their dogs or keep them on their property are not likely to lift a finger as it is easier to blame the dog/person that got attacked. I have always said training dogs is easy & training people is hard, but there are few who are going to want to take in dogs with a "history" & try to rehab them and the people that own them now are not going to do it. I suspect many of these dogs wouldn't have a problem if they had been properly trained in the first place. A fence does not really cure the problem either, it just keeps the dog from showing you how bad the problem is.... until it gets out one day.

There is a decline in literacy, knowledge of history and geography, and a reliance on getting information from sound bites on television that really disturbs me. People just seem less informed and more willing to vote on their "gut" responses rather than make careful considered decisions. The quality of candidates has become alarmingly low, in part because of this. I can't think of anyone in U.S. history who was as stunningly unqualified to lead as George W. Bush being elected in the past, with the exception of Ronald Reagan, a movie actor who provided an affable front to the neoconservatives who were pulling his strings.

REPLY TO AN ANSWER ABOVE: Someon mentioned that Hitler had a lot of experience that qualified him for leadership. Not so. He was a failed artist and tramp before fighting in World War I, after which he became a professional political ajitator. Stalin was a professional political ajitiator and revolutionary who never held a real job; his experience consisted entirely of political intriguing and murder.

I think that is the whole reason for hot button issues,to blind us to the Grand scheme of things.Do you really care what Bush thinks about abortion or gun control at this point?It does not matter and usually once elected politicians can or will do nothing to change any of these issues.The things that really matter such as integrity,honesty andthe like seem to be to boring for sound bytes.

So the answer is yes,most people vote on heresay,and soundbytes.Scary huh?

Exactly how do you define "qualified"? Is this just your own judgment of whether someone is thinking the way you do?

Yes, people vote because of "hot-button issues". So do you. Adolph Hitler had lots of experience and would have been considered "qualified". So could Josef Stalin. The point is that some issues are MUCH more important than "qualifications".

Boy oh boy, you opened up my can of worms! Capitol Hill is full of a bunch of self-serving, not people-serving politicians. They and their special interests are all that matter to them. They fake serve us. Campaigning and politics are propaganda, because they want us to believe a certain thing (that they won't carry out) to get our votes. How insincere as to representing a people!

I'm just hoping and praying Obama means what he says. But I want politicians who CARE about the people, not just use them for capitalistic gain! I'm telling you, we are only an economic unit to Washington. Listen to Mike Savage -- there are people on Capitol Hill that despise the "little man."

And then there's the Electoral College. Isn't the American popular vote good enough? There's no better poll on who the people want than to vote. But no, they undo the popular vote with the Electoral College. I think that has to go! What's wrong with a popular vote -- isn't that who the people said they wanted?

America needs to start thinking of its PEOPLE again! We pay for this country, why are we so minimized?

Yes. and It is sad, because the best candidates for the job won't run for the very reasons you give. The personal bar has been raised so high that only fictional characters can meet the mark. And one does not have to look far to see what that has brought us.

Most people who could be excellent public servants will never do so because they would expose themselves to such hate, scrutiny and incivility and lies that very few good people actually seek out political office.

Honest, intelligent, capable and qualified politicians are very rare, probably an endangered species at this point.

More often than not. Some of the wisest and most experienced candidates have been covered in an avalanche of sound bites.