Bo, Not quite. That’s a sketchy half truth: 1) You are making the case for an en

Bo,
Not quite. That’s a sketchy half truth:
1) You are making the case for an end to democracy, a restoration of parliament, and membership in parliament by demonstrated interest from demonstrated competency.
2) You are presuming that emotions are something more than a calculation of gains and losses given one’s intuition of one’s relative ability and cooperative market value overlayed on the masculine predator, systematizing, over-time, political bais vs the feminine, prey, empathizing, in time, interpersonal bias.
3) You are assuming that the only time we vote other than economically is when we are morally outraged, and that moral outrage is always explainable and either true or false.
4) And you’re not proposing that this problem can be solved by (a) separating men and women into different legislative houses (b) enacting the prohibition of false promise, baiting into hazard, in political ‘sales’ just as we do in commercial ‘sales’.

So you’re ‘spin’ here is only partly true: it’s true that people can be manipulated using false accusation of moral outrage, or false promise of moral good, or false promise we can violate the laws of the universe (scarcity, behavior, genetics) by social construction expressed as legislative construction. But it’s also true only because we make it legal to lie to them.

And that, it turns out, isn’t very difficult to fix.

cheers.