>>>>No, the problem is that people listen to celebrities just because they are celebrities.
>>>
>>>I have no problem with those who use their celebrity for good causes. Paul Newman was the perfect example.
>>
>>Sure, he did very good work. But what exactly qualifies him as a political expert that I should vote whatever way he tells me to? Or Madonna, or BB, or any other Celeb for that matter? What are their qualifications? Were Madonna and BB at least political science majors in University?
>
>Politics is too important to be left to experts. They make it all too complicated and generally don't do the will of the people. And in any system which wants to last and be remembered as a success, they should keep most of the people sufficiently happy most of the time.
>
>The elections being such a hot button issue is an obvious proof that they failed at that. If politicians and politologues (as we call political science graduates) were doing their jobs decently, people would just go their merry way and wouldn't care much about elections.
>
>As politics doesn't ask me whether I'm qualified to be played with - it just goes on and screws indiscriminately - so is everybody invited to play with it. So, why not celebrities? They aren't experts, they are, on the average, usually less smart than a regular couch potato, but they have this instinct to say whatever they think will get them more camera time. Which is, what the people want to hear, or want to talk about. That instinct to catch the public eye is their qualification. But then, there are other people who are equally, if not better qualified: all the people who care to vote. If they're trusted with a ballot, they should be trusted to state their opinion in public.

Sure they should. But that doesn't mean I should hang on their every word and nod my head at their wisdom and vote whatever way they say I should just because I like the way they sing, or tell a joke.