If Democratic Government is "of the People", then it can only be as 'good' as 'its People'.

In any Democratic Government, the 'Bottom line' is always the People. Of course, the reason for that is that government 'arises' from the People. Hence, the necessity for the people to elect an individual to serve at the Top, in a representative manner. Of course, the candidate always comes from the Bottom, or from the People. The 'basic form' of a 'democracy' should be a three-pronged approach to 'governing'. Consequently, it can be said, that a democracy is a government "of the People", "by the People", and "for the People". Of course, in a Written Constitutional Democracy, the 'format' is set forth in the Constitution; which must be followed. Some 'purported' democracies are not Constitutional in nature, and some do not use an electoral process to select leaders, and if they do, apparently, its not very fair. However, our present concern is not with those forms of purported democracies, but with a Constitutional Democracy. It's relatively easy to see the need for an 'intelligent process' of determining the qualifications of any candidate, to sit in a political office. Keep in mind, that most candidates are not presently in office, and some have never been in office. Hence, we have a situation where the People must decide based on information appearing in the media and the information given us by 'other' candidates. That's where politics kicks in, and everyone knows, we hear 'everything' except the candidates qualifications to hold office. It becomes a 'personality slug-fest'. Of course, we should know as much as possible about each candidate, but some of the 'punches' and 'counter punches', in the 'fest', evidence a tactic designed to 'embarrass' and 'demean', more so, than a tactic designed to inform. Its at this point, that the fact that a 'government can only be as good as its People', kicks in. A candidates 'real' thoughts about the Freedom and Equality of 'all the People', and the 'representative nature' of the Office, are very important issues in any campaign. The 'human condition' and the 'humanity' exhibited by any candidate, in their 'private life', becomes important. Unfortunately, we seldom hear or read about those factors, except in some negative formulation. How sad, 'politics' has 'reduced' the procedures of a democracy, to a level, no different, from those of an Autocracy, a Plutocracy or a Dictatorship. 'They' got to the Top, with 'power', 'money' or 'force'. Democracy gets to the Top by using the rules of 'economic advertising', 'money over-load', and 'personality destruction'. Where's the difference?