A bad leader. People won't elect leaders if they know he/she is bad.

Bad leader. If it continues, then the people who elected him/her are to blame. They elected him with the promise he/she would do well. If he/she doesn't fulfill that promise, the people have the responsibility to see that they aren't allowed to continue.

Bad leader. As he he/she gave people false pretenses when voting for them

It always seem that people will elect a ruthless person to be their leader in economic hard times. Perhaps nothing illustrates this better than how Hitler came to power in Germany at a time when a loaf of bread cost a bushel barrel of German currency. In America, Richard Nixon with his reputation as a political hard liner, came to power during the most turbulent days of the Vietnam War. He was supposed to be the one who would bring the war to it's finish for "The Silent Majority".

People who elect him. Don't vote for them then complain that they're in office. & I hate that the same people reelect the jerk who did such a bad/mediocre job in the first place (Hillary clinton, Mike Bloomberg, etc)

The people who elect them. We all know candidates lie to get into office so it shouldn't be any surprise when they do the exact opposite of what they were promising. What really gets me is that people will complain about a leader and what a bad job he's done and then turn around re-elect him again and continue complaining.

People who elect him. He wouldn't be a leader if people didn't elect him.

Both at times.

A little of both, for the leader is almost always deceptive about his innermost convictions and sins, though you must be careful how you define a bad leader, for not all bad leaders are as rotten as some. You can just be a good person but a little goofy and/or scatterbrained like Bush! I am a fan of the dubya, and I have to admit that that at least is possible or preferable to what the dems are saying. Though a truly bad leader is almost always deceptive, it is the prerogative of the people to try to detect deception, and if there is reason enough to suspect such deception, it is our right as citizens to critique and analyze all he or she says to determine if he or she is the best man or woman for the job. Additionally, the worst leader is one who deceives and makes empty promises one after the other and then does as he or she wants when elected, though if someone fails to see the glaring faults of said candidate, or chooses to ignore the obvious ones, and votes for him or her anyway, the voter is not held guitless.

You forgot the mention "the party" of the leader. They were the ones who convinced the people to vote for the leader. I firmly believe that many political people are "on the side of the people", but they need to be affiliated with one of the parties to get into the position they can do anything. Then they "owe favors" to the party, and among those will be things that go against their own idealogy. (See http://www.orangefrogproductions.com/ofp2o_auth_ops_politics_politicos+parties.shtml for more on my take.) Of course, if we're talking about an individual leader whose initials are GWB, history will tell. Then again, whether the war in Iraq was right or wrong, leaving Iraq vulnerable to area countries who are "enemies" of the US and to terrorist factions would be tantamount to creating ANOTHER country, and probably many more, who hate the US. Stablizing Iraq is going to be a priority for whomever is elected president. This MYOB philosophy may be fine BEFORE the war, but now we're in it, we CANNOT allow a whole country anywhere in the world to fall victim. (Remember... We HELPED bin Ladin and others, including Iran, then when it came down to the actual fighting, we left them on their own. This is one of the MAJOR reasons they hate the West.)

I won't blame the bad leader and I won't blame the people who elected him/her. I'll take a different tack in that I believe many election result "problems" are the result and fault of those that never vote.

both.