So obvious that democracy cannot exist, under populations choice, whether registered voters need to vote or not vote. Candidates are running a popularity contest to influence the dumbest voters to both select them as party presidential candidates and eventual president.

All gets back to school education's ability to allow students to think.
All that needs to influence elections are controlling media and education.
Any country that forces compulsive education, starting aged five and six years, forcing early education as a must do, are mentally stressing' child abuse onto children.
Candidates wanting to be elected are often elected by what experienced spin doctor campaign managers advise.

Democracies don't work: politicians are merely public relations front men; badly educated emotional deciding populations believe in the media exposing corruption, proves there exists true democracies; that true democracies wouldn't trick citizens out of their accumulated savings. All dream land fantasy.

If people believe praying to god will get people into heaven, people can be convinced to believe almost anything unseen.
I believe the people that truly rule countries are aware of how people can be easily influenced, and maintain control, to stop long term corrupt future outcomes.

The same people control world trade, sharing resources somewhat equally between countries.

The problem is that even dumb people can decide that enough is enough. Conditions haven't been getting better for ordinary people for a very long time, and have gotten getting worse for some, while enormous wealth and all the benefits of economic growth have been siphoned up to the top.

If I were a member of the US elite, I would be hoping that Donald Trump doesn't meet with a mysterious accident and that an establishment candidate wins fair and square. If Trump is elected president, I would hope that he wasn't lying and would do his damnedest to fulfil his election promises. The same goes for Bernie Sanders on the other side.

The reason is that if these conditions aren't met, the alternative may well be violence, as happened after World War I, when the American people forced their elite to shut down the first era of globalisation, with mass rioting, communal violence, bombings, and targeting of members of the elite for assassination, as well as ongoing violent labour disputes, one so bad that the US government actually called out the Air Force (then a branch of the Army) against its own people. See

http://aeon.co/essays/history-tells-us-where-the-wealth-gap-leads

Hi Divergence,

You may be onto something. Until now I've thought of Trump as some sort of circus performer, having a great time shoving a stick up the arse of the establishment (to which he has always belonged), stringing people along, but not really meaning anything substantial. I thought that Trump represented the redneck Right, and Sanders the dreamy Left, leaving the middle unrepresented, and thereby leaving it to the mercies of people like Rubio and Clinton. Or perhaps Bloomberg.

But there was a very revealing article in today's Australian, which described the impoverishment of the middle, the working people, as the elites (including the bureaucrats and intellectual classes) empowered and enriched themselves at one end, and the welfare classes learnt to get by at the other - both at the expense of the middle.

So in a sense, both Trump and Sanders are pitching to the grievances of the middle (one leaning right, one leaning left), effectively shutting out both Rubio and Clinton. All my theories about a Rubio-Clinton, or a Rubio-Bloomberg-Clinton, fight, are down the drain.

This could be a fascinating year. It will still be a circus, but we'll all be hypnotised by the prospect of somebody falling from the high wire.

Joe

My theories to why Iowa is the first presidential candidate selection process, and how the selection process is easily seen as being easily corrupted by many unknown corporate companies and foreign countries.

US American voters have limited number of candidates for the important political office of US president. I assume intelligent people believe all choices available seem less than desirable.

The church blames god for when things go wrong: earth quakes; European centuries on plague; family members deaths. Everything is god's will. The Catholic church blames unforgiven sins, wanting everyone to be Catholic, committing Catholics to often attend confession.

US presidents are partly the new alternative to god media commentators can blame.
The last half of the 1980s: 1988;1989, had a two year investment boom that ended badly for many western capitalist countries.
The second term president Ronald Reagan was said to be suffering from Alzheimer's. Reagan gets the blame for 1980s high inflation, blamed on Reagan's Star Wars technology development was only proven to exist with no more that animated television scenes of diploid satellites firing laser beams at soviet intercontinental nuclear missiles. No actual photographed hardware that I know of was ever seen on television media news or documentaries.

Richard Nixon' Vietnam War and Water Gate scandal distractions. President Ford was depicted as slow. President Carter was also depicted as slow. George Bush gave us a middle east war. George W Bush's second term was depicted as stupid. Several media commentators said “we have to get rib of George W Bush”. Letterman Show had a nightly joke about George W Bush speeches”. Bush seems to be doing speech slip ups on purpose.

My assumption is that bad economic conditions were blamed on poor performing US presidents.

There are many Hollywood movies, television movie and television series that promote ideas that US presidents are real leaders. Yet not most knowledgeable people. All dramas promoting the president as truly in charge.

The “24 hour” television series had new presidents in each yearly series. The series where the president was female, first words heard from the female president actress in a series promotion was “citizens get the president citizens deserve”. Sounds like bad citizens get bad presidents.

The reason Iowa is the first state and why the Democratic Party selection is Athenian democracy selection process.

The candidate for elections are “set up to fail” blame economic collapse high unemployment poor growth on voters selection on elected candidates democracy for corporate regulation laws.
2016 Elementary series, Sherlock saying, Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst of all systems except for all the rest”.

My assumption is that the present presidential selection process was set up to fail after 1968, allowing future poor performing presidential candidates to be voted into office, during planned poor economic growth periods.

Democracy is little more than a replacement for god, adjusting laws to allow future economic collapses. Democracy after capitalist economic booms ending in busts, introducing new laws to stop future booms busts cycles. As populations have short memories, periodic boom bust and a faith in democracy governments allows establishment leaders to get away with depressions and recessions.

Reasons why media are pointing out Iowa and resulting poor party/circus attitude presidential candidates, is because a long period of declining economic growth is coming. Presidents will stand up and take the blame as intended. Media commentators will focus attention towards the elected president's inability to fix high unemployment.

Why are presidential candidates acting dumb? Whoever is finally elected as presidents, will immediately be seen as incapable of running the country. What every happens to the US, happens simultaneously to most other countries.

February 18, Hillary Clinton was supposedly criticised for barking in front of a forum of supporters, imitating a dog barking.
During the day ABC midday news and or TCN 9 4pm news, either one or both, I never bothered to remember. A news reader showed the beginning of the story.
Hillary was talking about politicians who were stating that if politicians were stating the reasons for the “great recession” Australians hearing great recession as the GFC, global financial crises. If politicians blame the great recession on government over regulation, dogs following politicians would bark, as seen by Hillary Clinton.

Evening news left out the reasons why Hillary Clinton was barking, only showing her barking, news readers saying she is been criticised for barking.

News readers should be accused of miss-representing news stories. Which I am always saying news is little more than manipulating propaganda. That people listening to news stories are having judgements simplified. Turning mildly complex information into opportunities to embarrass politicians, reinforcing ideas that media are free from political influence and retaliation, as in many Middle Eastern and Asian counties are not free to criticise anything believed important.

I am accusing politicians as being no more than public relations trickery, having believed free people being able to end up: homeless; on illegal addictive drugs; addicted to alcohol; forced to save 9% of income in superannuation funds that may not be rewarding when most savers retire on mass. If economic collapse doesn't steal savings, and or wage inflation will.