The problem as I see it is that it's hard to form rules to discourage bad thinking and practices. It's not like we can imprison people for engaging in stupid arguments. Else, everyone - myself included - would be in prison. Short of such draconian consequences it's hard to find a system of incentives that encourage good thinking in the long run.<p>It's sort of like the bill being proposed in Congress that would limit lawmakers' ability to be lobbyists. It's a noble gesture but doomed to failure. A congressman wrote the part of the Medicare Prescription Plan that prevents Medicare from negotiating prices of drugs. He's now a $2 million a year lobbyist. If he couldn't be a lobbyist he'd be a 'consultant' or a 'researcher'. It just doesn't work.<p>The essence of the problem is that it's tough to fight apathy, ignorance, and stupidity. Collectively we are easily manipulated. Look at how many people think Sarah Palin is smart. If you don't tackle the issues of apathy, ignorance, and stupidity then you get the current system and no set of rules is going to change this.<p>As voters, we need to collectively focus on the qualities of a candidate and not which party they are in. Is the candidate smart? Does the candidate show signs of loving to learn? Is the candidate willing to say something like, "You know what? I'm not an expert in nuclear proliferation. There are lots of them around and I'll listen to their counsel and make a good choice." Is the candidate able to see through bullshit?<p>We've got it all wrong and in this sense I agree with Gowers. He has a creative solution. In the long run it won't help. Greed, incompetence, ignorance, and stupidity are too rampant.