The US Republican Presidential candidate selection process is rather fun (!) - at any rate to an ex-political-hack such as myself. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/u-republicans-romney-gingrich-vie-south-carolina-win-000020425.html To lift a quote from the article: "Some Florida voters were delighted by Gingrich's rise. "We are for Gingrich all the way," said Ada Rodriguez, 75, a real estate broker. "Obama is a socialist. He is the same as Castro," referring to Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, the enemy of many in Florida's Cuban exile community."
If dear Ada (doubtless, an awfy nice wee auld wifie and all that) really thinks that the current occupant of yon place on Pennsylvania Ave. which the Royal Marines burnt in 1812 is a Commie, then she's a) never read Marx b) or Dorothy Day of the Catholic Worker movement c) has no idea what Fidel Castro has actually done (both good and bad) and d) would doubtless see David Cameron as some sort of mad pinko. In short, many of the most quotable in both politics (and indeed religion) are basically theoretically illiterate in the particular field on which they pronounce. Trouble is, they can vote for and create an outcome that messes up the lives of billions who can't really act against their dafter ideas. That said, you really can't ban the incurably biased or stupid from having a vote. That would be undemocratic. And a bad thing.
let's just hope the US electors (historically capable of picking great presidents like FDR or Teddy Roosevelt and utter disgraces like Warren Harding) can go for someone sensible from whatever party they as a majority favour. Bampots with nukes are a seriously bad idea.