A person running for president of this country comes from show business and there are venture capitalists like Mark Andreeson who seriously talk about him as somebody who knows policy all because they can get a seat at the table.
-Vocal Minority, Intellectual Minority, Minorities et al.
I am not labelling individuals here - but there are very many around the world fitting that description.
Whatever point you’re trying to make is also hilarious to watch. In democracy it does not matter what instincts were provoked to get the votes. Sometimes the person you didn’t like wins, and that’s part of the deal.
Hilariousness not fitting.
Whereas (contrary to some immediate interpretations of your formula), the position "candidates that appeal to the guts are disqualified from office" has strong grounds.
I will express it again, more flatly: we require that administrators be decent, and in many parts of the world there exist candidates in office that do not fit requirements for respect.
I cannot properly match the general idea implying the above with your "ain't" statement because it is not clear what you exactly meant; we can only say that "democracy" in the way you seem to present it is not a universal value and that the "win" you mention seems a very childish idea ("win" is a working system, not the chanceful temporary result of a confrontation as if of sporting teams).
And I will add another related point, also in light of the other poster: systems which just substantially resemble confrontations as if of sporting teams are gravely inadequate. (And there exists no "win" there.)
And I will add a further one to try and dissipate any misunderstanding: whether the administration in the territory I happen to be in is or is not the one which I could have judged as that I would have picked from the pool, that remains unsharable information, but it is also irrelevant: inadequate administrators are a transversal presence.
Translation: "My guy didn't win so I'm bitching."
-- Stating «My guy didn't win» implies there would have been a sought candidate which lost in a competition: that is delirious. We may not even be aware of who political opponents were: there is no "«My guy»".
-- And there can be no confusion of "indecent" with "disliked": scum is scum and there cannot be attempts to cover objective faults with personal taste.
-- The statement (reconstructed) "the losing part rejects the system" is irrelevant: the system is rejected when faulty, regardless of side taking, which may not happen at all.
-- It's not that there "ain't no democracy": it is that "ain't no society", in face of division where scum can be confused for normal candidates. For your information, we had seen societies in which an attempt was made to restrict candidacy to presentable figures - in my lifetime.
You cannot take a picture and make of it a kindergarten sketch depicting something different.
Your efforts to exclude candidates along your arbitrary lines and complaining when you don't get your way is a perfect example of "It ain't democracy if you ain't won."
So: in Countria candidate C is elected for some office, competing with other candidates A, B, D and E. Who is «your guy»?
> arbitrary lines
There exist traits which are not arbitrary at all but evident as objectively lowly to some segments of the population. "Pornology" is one of them. Relativism towards those judgements is like fighting arithmetics. Whether candidate "P" were considered interesting by some for other reasons (Heidegger according to Jaspers: "But H. has beautiful hands!"), candidate P remains "scum". Said segment of the population will state being extremely uncomfortable with a society that allows "scum" taking office. The issue will be societal and systemic, and unrelated to competition.
> complaining when you don't get your way is a perfect example of "It ain't democracy if you ain't won."
Only if you remain in the narrow thought box of assumptions of acceptance of that concept of "democracy", as it appears from some uncertain interpretation of a locution hardly manageable in analytical terms. The expression contains a very loose idea of "won" that seems to imply you support some candidate, actively. And it contains an idea of "democracy" which suggests more than the term can clearly contain (as in, "then there is no democracy!" - ok, "so what", and what would that mean?).
If everyone was rational and didn't do what they were told, choosing to verify everything and only follow what was appropriate, then the entire marketing, ad, government, legal, prison, etc industries would all collapse because they wouldn't be necessary any more. It's fairly obvious that there are people who follow dangerous, stupid advice.
Entertainers are not necessarily these things.
Just like lawyers - presidents are often lawyers - are not necessarily brilliant paragons.
Those slave-owners held it self-evident that all men had the unalienable right of liberty (among other rights.)
I can't remember 1984 well enough to remember any specific examples of doublethink, but they can't be as good as this one.
Sorry. Who among the founding fathers was women to call it parents? Founding fathers seems to be more accurate than founder Mothers or Founding parents.