I enjoyed Dr. Burton's earlier book. I reject a few of the premises implicit in the current piece. First, he assumes a single spectrum of intelligence, rather we are each a complex mix of many talents. It is hard to disagree that incompetent people often fail to recognize their own incompetence - but incompetence in what, precisely? More to the point, the opposite of shabby incompetence is not pure and noble competence, rather we are ever and always a complex mix of greater and lesser personal strengths and weaknesses.

Second, incompetence is not the same thing as simple ignorance. We are each of us staggeringly ignorant of vast multitudes of human and natural facts. If you want to convince someone of their own ignorance, that is likely an easier proposition than convincing them they are incompetent. Any skilled teacher remedies ignorance every day, by conveying knowledge, not competence, per se. The question isn't intrinsic personal worth - it is worth for a purpose.

Third, the electorate does not vote for the person they want. They vote against the other candidate. In my half century, I have yet to see an election for any office in which two similarly desirable candidates were standing. On occasion there have been elections in which no candidate was acceptable. In those cases I chose some variation of "none of the above". More frequently I am voting against some horror-show of a monster. Recognizing the monsters in our midst requires knowledge of the world, not so much personal competence.

Fourth, Burton's conclusions are drawn from studies of 1) undergraduates, and 2) "staunch party members". The undergraduates are too easy a target, so I'll focus on the shortcomings of drawing any conclusions about decision-making from party members. Lest we forget, we were warned at the founding of the Republic about the dangers of party politics, see Federalist No. 10. Rather than electoral decisions keying on the question of recognizing competence, they key on the psychology of party membership. Republicans will vote for republicans, even if they do recognize their candidates' incompetence.

(Not to mention that the most coercive techniques of the major parties focus on blocking undesirable candidates from ever appearing on a ballot in the first place. The citizenry can't make a decision - bad or good - about a missing candidate.)

Finally, only one other letter writer has pointed out that it isn't the competence of the candidates that should be tested, rather the competence of the electors. I doubt I am alone in wanting to see the Electoral College disbanded. Failing that, how about turning it into a literal "Electoral College", with lectures and seminars given by and about the different candidates? Educate the electors and you will get a better election. Educate a candidate and you will simply get a more knowledgeable loser 50% of the time.

Salon.com is rife with trolls, and this thread is perhaps particularly rich in off-topic passive aggressive behavior. Certainly Burton was asking for trouble by making strong assertions while simultaneously over-simplifying human behavior. When seeking trolls, look for statements counter to logic. Why do people say what they say? Here is an assertion abstracted from this thread:

I'm going to vote for the person that has the greatest Pro-Life stance and has the greatest Pro-Gun stance.

On its surface, this appears to be a clear indicator that the post containing the assertion is a troll. Two irreconcilable statements are combined into one. What is remarkable here from the point of view of the topic of Burton's piece is, however, one's complete confidence that this bizarre juxtaposition of issues is not a troll.

Rather, the core platform ("values" if you will) of a particular political party are often rife with oxymorons. One suspects that this is done intentionally with the expectation that the diversity of voters will forgive a modicum of illogic in favor of having their own personal hot buttons pressed.

It is only when we abstract our debates from the illogic of party politics that the actual issues can be addressed and consensus sought. The political parties know this. The leadership of neither major party expects to, for instance, settle the issues of abortion and gun control. Neither party desires that these be settled. It is to their perceived advantage to keep the electorate buzzing about unchangeable or irrelevant realities of American society. While the citizens are so distracted, they won't be focusing on corporate welfare, economic security, environmental restraint, and the thousand and one other issues that actually offer tractable solutions suitable for pragmatic compromise.

This is an open letter to those American voters who are not affiliated with either major political party, or who have not yet decided whether to vote for Barack Obama or John McCain.

No, that was a letter to POSSIBLE voters who are both unaffiliated AND undecided. Lots are unaffiliated. Lots have also been quite decided to vote against whatever terrifying clown the republicans were sure to nominate - like, this has been decided for years. But the most basic question is how to convince people to bother to vote at all.

Either you believe your party is the best dang party out there - in which case you should have faith that the choices made by new voters will naturally break in your favor. Or you believe your party is not - and that the "natural" vote will go against you - and that you should therefore dissuade new people from coming to the polls.

Stop trying to convince people of your relative greatness. Just convince them to vote at all.