Why do people often knowingly re-elect corrupt politicians?

Question

Why do people often knowingly re-elect corrupt politicians?

Answer 1

They get us into a mess and we expect them to get us out.

Answer 2

Because they think the other candidates might be worse (That's why Peru re-elected their president. The other candidate was supported by Hugo Chavez)

Answer 3

"Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer"  The more corrupt the politician the more the public wants to keep their eye on him, so they vote him back in, haha, jokes on them!

Answer 4

it is like an infomercial, they may be selling c**p but the uniformed and political lazy don't care they buy it. some people think they will fix anything and everything but don't have a clue about what it is. remember that most of the american public are like a 4 year old they will believe anything. ask qvc, hsn and the like and the company's that are hired to get people elected. it is not like running for the student council anymore maybe never has been.

Answer 5

I've been a campaign manager/assistant several times and have worked for the right wing and the left. I usually focus on individuals. Ascertaining the motives of voters perplexes political hacks.

Hitting the right formula is important to getting your candidate through the wall of lies and favourably regarded in the minds of voters. Corrupt politicians lie. Often people knowlingly go along with the lies because they do not wish to address the problem. It must be out of sight. Looking at it only makes the issue worse. Being lied to is in the voters job description.

The problem lies in definitions. Define corruption in the political sense. Even when politicians actually break a law, on the books the tag of "corrupt" remains positively ethereal. To the courts it is illegal, to the masses of the electorate

After years of this study and the corpses of campaigns littering the resume, I cannot for the life of me give a real reason why a person votes the way they do. If anything I've learned that thousands of people of

Most people who do vote for a candidate do so by rote. Its genetics. My Daddy voted Democrat, therefore I am a Democrat. My Daddy voted Republican, therefore

I have persuaded many individuals to agree with rational policies, proven facts, agreed facts, excellent arguments which positively are indesputable. They agree the incumbent is a no-good so and so. The minute that they go behind the curtain a trick lever goes on while a blind urge guides their hand to vote for the cad anyway.

And genetic voting or voting the way your parents did, the grandparents, and the great grand parents occurs in twenty five percent of the population. Regardless of which fold they come disguised these people will vote by rote. So out of one hundred percent which is everything. You have rote genetic voters of 25% voting for the Right Wing and 25% rote genetic voting for the Left wing.

Count it. I do. Yes whenever you begin a campaign whether for a right wing or left wing or chicken wing you work from the assumption that the incumbent will have 25% of his/her vote permanently fixed.

Anyone attempting to overthrow an incumbent must ascertain their fixed vote. From that voter faction comes supporters, financial aid and word of mouth support.

Always understand one thing, I believe it was Machiavelli who pointed out that no one likes a rebel in so many words. Reformers and those challenging a system are confronted by another facet. Voters will remain conservative in their voting habits.

Why? First is blind greed, egregious and arrogant self interest. Voters perceive that a person in political office is engaged in patronage, nepotism, kickbacks, defrauding tax dollars, misleading the legislature and almost criminal incompetence. They agree. Legally this is corruption. But if they look at their personal lives, that they have money in the bank that the politician was ripping someone else off. They will still vote for the same. People in a representative democracy may vote but the criteria is never the national interest it is the personal interest. Kennedy's famous remarks about doing it for the country, make campaign managers laugh and joke endlessly. They understand the seamy side of the altruistic voter.

Now I have stated that the perception of corruption varies according to who defines it. We must use an example of this which everyone knows..... HMmmmmm

Okay, the previous President what's his name... Oh yes Bill... Well Bill is a caring guy. He does so many things for so many people why he was observed to have administered a private tutorial lesson to one of his lowly assistants. The lesson was oral hygiene in politics.

Well the perception of the moral majority became clad in a hysteria of red. Why they almost impeached the President over his private and personal tutoring sessions with a full adult of 24 years. The moral majority moved the age of consent to 25 years of age stating that she was a poor culpable young innocent thing. His crime... horniness.

Now fast forward. Remember our example of the ever moving ethereal line of corruption. We have cited that list before. A list comprised of:   patronage, nepotism, kickbacks, defrauding tax dollars, misleading the legislature and almost criminal incompetence.

Examine the Presidency of George W. Bush. The War in Iraq. He misled Congress - a corruption perhaps.

Scooter Libby exposed a CIA foreign agent for the sole purpose of revenge on an effective opponent of the War. Intrigue. Nixon quit over something like this. The person who gained the benefit of this criminal action commuted his sentence. And likely will fully pardon him as a traditional final act of Presidency - a corruption perhaps.

Whether history is fair or not will not effect the universal conclusion that Donald Rumsfeld was perhaps the most incompetent Secretary of Defense in the entire record of history of the United States. Even in the early days Rumsfeld counterpoised the decisions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and literally created the abysmal strategic situation in Iraq through faulty theories and ill conceived actions. Thousands of Americans will now die well into the next decade in an unwinnable war because of this man. Who appointed him? Where does the actual responsibility lie?

A couple of years ago a powerful maelstrom flooded the treasured city of New Orleans. In every political region one critical duty of the government(s) is to respond to these emergencies with vigor and alacrity. The Federal Emergency Management Agency or FEMA continued with its inept and peculiar responses to this emergency.* Its then Director was a patronage appointment which was compounded by the fact that Michael D. Brown knew comparitively little about emergency services. He got the job in the President's own words because his "shirt was always white." He was a patronage appointment - a corruption perhaps.

And worse we could go through that list. e.g. Kickbacks (alleged and perceived) - Haliburton Inc. (d**k Cheney's old firm by astounding coincidence).  And more in detail  but we have sufficient examples to prove our point that in the definition of corruption the bar moves.

This moving bar also applies to perceptions about corruption. The United States holds its standards to be the model for the world. As you can see one President scores point after point on our corrupt practices list without so much of a protest from the American population. While another President almost impeached out of office because he privately wanted his k**b cleaned despite the fact that in no way did impair his judgement over affairs of state. A moving bar of corruption confuses voters.

Internationally the US government holds its moral standard very high indeed. For in its official record of corrupt states Bangla Desh, one of the poorest nations in the world.**

And it is rated as worst because citizens from the richest countries in the world Germany say so. Transparency international is a product of Germany. And we all know what a moral standard they have set for the globe in the last century and a half.

The reason corruption is perceived in places like Costa Rica, Bangla Desh is because when you get something approved or need a license, you get the approval by buying a license and then paying a negotiated sum to the bureaucrat expediting or facilitating the process.

The last in our self righteous world is corruption. But Bengal is so poor its central government cannot adequately compensate its bureacrats with a living wage. It other words they evolved an effective system of piecework without the burdern of high taxes. And it is open. And it is accepted throughout society. Its a gratuity in other words. In the more developed countries like the Europeans and Northern North America this is corruption.

However in those poor countries it evolved a system because they had to have an effective well paid bureacrat without the burden of taxation. Remember many of these countries owe billions to other nations. Most of their tax revenues now go to paying off this burdensome debt to the very same countries from where the criticisms of corruption hypocritically originate.

And getting rid of that corruption in countries like Bangla could be gotten rid of tomorrow by simply forgiving all the present debt under the condition that those monies flowing out of Bengal to pay the debt now turn and go to pay their bureaucrats a living wage. Instantly. Two days. It could be done with the stroke of pens just that quick.

If one goes to countries like Italy or other small Latin countries you will find government services run by families. That is nepotism and is actually a corruption. But not in that society. There it is accepted practice. Now why.

For instance the water works. It takes practice to run those systems. Families cannot afford to send their children to colleges to get the book knowledge. In a family structure, the father can pass that knowledge onto his son or daughter or more likely son-in-law at little or no cost to the state or town. This system is very old going back into the antiquity of civilization. It is why families are called Smith or Cooper. This sort of thing is acceptable and openly understood in a small community.

This system became very sophisticated and codified in the evolution of the Hindu religion. Families and groups became genetically responsible for the mechanics of society. The slang name is Nepotism. To the practioners a way of life going back into antiquity, to the modern perception of the self righteous developed world this is Nepotism  - a corruption.

Hence the sliding bar. Now we move on to another aspect why The underlying fundamental reason for corrupt incumbency remains laziness and ignorance on the part of the voter. The extent of their research into issues is all of five minutes.

I cite a personal example. One time I looked after a poll for a candidate. The incumbent like you now figure was a well known corrupt puppy. Well the way one campaigns can be the mass attack or the guerrilla approach. One worker is assigned to campaign in a specific poll for a candidate. There was no television campaign at that time.

Now this really happened. I know I delivered material to this one friend who happened to live in the poll because a poll worker tries to canvass at least once preferably twice. He got it.

"You read the stuff I dropped off eh?" I started.

"Oh yeah. yeah." he replied.

"Who did you vote for?" I asked.

He shrugged. "Aaah you can tell me! Its all over anyway." I urged.

"Well Tony XXXXXX" he said.

"Holy cripe, you know the guy's crooked!" I mentioned.

"Well, ya I know but none of the other parties had the policies I liked." he excused.

"Like what?" I came back.

"No Health Care stuff." He opined.

"Thats on page two of that pamphlet I dropped off for ya." I said. Oh wow the blank stare.

"Anything else?" I asked... on a roll.

"Well ya no one mentioned that road into town." He said thinking no party would have that in their brochure.

"Ya." I came back. "On page three... Here it is." I reached in my pocket and delivered to his eyes a ragged copy of the campaign brochure with the things he said that no one had...

He looked chagrined. Like I dropped it. Sometimes you don't win by winning an argument. Regardless this friend was not an isolated. Of the remaining electorate I would say that at least two thirds do not bother to read anything and snear at any commercial. message quickly flipping the remote to another vacant channel.

Only one in ten of the remaining people actually bother to take the time to familiarize themselves about the issues and candidates and bother to take the time to be curious.

Now one thinks that they are home free for ten percent is enough to sway an election. Not really. for the three three three rule still applies. At the end of the day usually only 3 percent of any voting population actually is swayable. If there is a corrupt politician these few are the ones that actually determine the outcome of an election.

And this is true because of the reality of one thing. It is actually d**n hard to overturn an incumbent. Nothing you do can get that vote into your poll column. Rather it is the incompetence of the incumbence that predetermines the outcome of the election.

Indeed one may think that political assassination may hold the answer. Again think again. In the long list of political assassinations it is usually the good honest politician, or the politician with a backbone of integrity that gets it, not the corrupt politician. From Lincoln to Ghandi, to Kennedy all were regarded by friend and foe alike corruption free but very politically strong and effective.

Assembling our list into a summation for this answer. Why do people knowingly re-elect corrupt politicians?

1. - the power of incumbency. People will vote for the incumbent no matter what.

2. - the power of genetic or rote voting. My father voted for that party it is my party, I will vote for the jerk anyway.

3. - the lack of education. People in this democracy rarely take the time to read and educate themselves with the candidates, the platforms they represent, the commitment that candidate possesses to follow through on promises.

4. - the power of greed. Well maybe the guy is corrupt but it doesn't effect me.

5. - the power of h**l. This wasn't explained. No need to.. Its the old ... saying...  "Better the Devil we know."

6. - the power of conservatism. People will vote to maintain a way of life. Reformers rarely get that level necessary to topple a popular corrupt politician.

7. - the very definition of corruption. The shifting bar of corruption has no standard. One mans acceptable honest behaviour may be a corruption to someone else.

I hope that sort of covers those reasons why. Oh by the way... this was the short answer.

Answer 6

A lot of time it is the devil you know versus the devil you don't.  I know they screwed over so and so, but that wouldn't happen to me, pie in the sky scenario....sorta like Bushie telling people God said to vote Republican.  Can't argue with God now can we?  If GWB ran now and stated that, there would be a queue around the block to vote him back in.  Not a soul would doubt he would lie to us, and how can you question God.

Answer 7

I've noticed that sometimes voters honestly don't really know anything about who they're voting for.  They might not watch the segments of the news involving political scandals, or know enough about the system to understand in an unbiased way what is or isn't abuse of power.  So for a portion of the voters, even though it's obvious to some of us, those people might not really know the politician is corrupt.  This past semester in my university class "American Presidency," out of 25 people, 21 of us were junior (or higher level) history majors, but I was the only one who knew who Karl Rove was.

I also worked on a local political campaign this past year, and among individual voters, the reasons they liked or disliked a politician was because "he's so nice," "he responded to me when I sent him a letter," "he goes to our church," etc.  They don't always vote for issues (or sometimes even politics at all).  They like someone on a personal level, and are willing to give them a second chance, or don't believe the allegations of corruption.

The type of corruption can also be the reason... another respondent mentioned Bill Clinton's sexual indiscretions.  To some people, that's not a corrupt politician, just a morally flawed human being.  (BTW, Clinton *was* impeached, all impeachment means is bringing charges against a government official)

In a conversation with my former roommate, she told me the reason she voted the way she did was because she didn't think we should elect someone new "during a time of war."  She thought bringing someone new in would be worse for the country than keeping the same person in power.  The new person wouldn't have the background and might make it worse, or it might show "them" (whoever "them" stands for, it can vary) weakness in our leadership in a time we needed to be strong.

Honestly, it's really difficult to truly understand how informed a voter is before going into the booth, or why they pull the lever for a specific person, but in my experience the official actions of a politician sometimes don't matter as much as their ideology, their platform, or their publicity machine.