yes, I'm saying electing directly with a majority vote is problematic,
So you are against the basic principle of democracy as we know it today? Democracy, regardless of what type, have the the principle of majority vote at its core. When a person gets elected with the least of the vote, that is the start of a dictatorship since a majority of the voters have voted AGAINST said person.
Picture running for student body president. You get 60 out of 100 votes, and yet the teachers choose the good looking girl with big boobs, who's father happens to donate big money to the school. Is that fair? That is in principle how Bush got elected in 2000. Is that fair or democratic?
and yet many americans are ready to go with the popular vote for national offices.
Because it is the most fair way? Or do you want to go back to the good old days, where only people of certain stature (aka wealth) have a vote.. or white males over 35? Do you want only people of certain education and wealth to be able to vote?
I find it interesting to see what kind of scummy people get elected in desperate countries like argentina simply because their pretty young wife endears herself to the masses, and then how people in america and other countries can wish for fewer road blocks between the uninformed, easily swayed voters and the presidency, want to get rid of term limits and other things of that nature that were designed to prevent the abuse of power. maybe I'm not making much sense, it's just an observation, feel free to ignore it.
"Scummy" people and abuse of power happens everywhere, regardless if the person in question is elected directly or by a group of non elected people.
Lets look at some examples. You mention Argentina. Argentina has never had a healthy democratic political system. It has been run by right wing dictatorships and left wing dictatorships for decades. Political corruption up to and including the office of the President has been wide spread and common. This is the life of politics in Argentina and it damn hard to change such an attitude and especially since the people in power also run the media and control most of the wealth in the country. Venezuela was the same for many decades btw, where the right had a lock on politics in Venezuela, and as soon as they eased up on the grip on society, Chavez got elected.
Look at Chicago and other "corrupt" governments with in the US. It is not like they just happened, no.. the are common in said area because the political system is geared to such ideals over generations. Getting rid of corruption is damn hard, when there is no democracy. You cant get rid of corrupt politicians if the same politicians prevent any plausible competition in running, either by intimidation or by legalities.
Does it mean that directly elected governments are bad then? Of course not.. your own Congress is directly elected... does that mean it is bad?
The problem with corruption in government can be directly linked to weak political systems that have and are being manipulated by people in power to keep these people in power. This is a result in a weak democracy and especially a society that not only accepts corruption but embraces it as part of tradition. On top of that lack of accountability and transparency are often widespread in said societies. And if the media are in someone's pocket then it gets even harder to fight corruption, since media are the only thing that can change the views of people in the short and even medium term.
Reuters – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez attends a swearing-in ceremony of new Caracas' Mayor Jorge Rodriguez …
